Centerfield

Vic Sage wrote: In all seriousness... see, that's the problem. Why shouldn't it be a serious notion that the Mets sign Cole? I mean i know why its not, but $$ is not an acceptable answer for a NYC franchise with a mid-market budget. For the record, I think the Mets should sign Cole, re-sign Wheeler, sign Rendon, and trade Syndergaard to the Red Sox for Mookie Betts (and if they have to include Smith or Davis too, fine). Now that would be an off-season.

Mickey's an idiot. Regardless of whether ownership ponies up and raises payroll or not, no team should intentionally handicap themselves with an idiot manager. Plus he's not likeable. Terry Collins may not have been the sharpest guy out there, but he was so likeable. I have no idea what Jeff will do here. It's hard to predict stupid people.

"Part of the motivation for adding Stroman at the deadline was with the idea that Zack might leave this winter. So effectively, we've already replaced Zack Wheeler..." You winner is Andy Martino. Literally the first day of the off-season. But one area that won't require much work is their starting rotation, which is likely to look like this next year: Jacob deGrom, Noah Syndergaard, Marcus Stroman, Steven Matz and a fifth starter yet to be acquired. The July acquisition of Stroman was made with the intention of replacing either Wheeler or Syndergaard in 2020. Full article. https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/mets-2020-starting-rotation-already-coming-into-focus/310970356https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/mets-2020-starting-rotation-already-coming-into-focus/310970356

I think it's lame. And I'm usually a "let the kids play" guy. I'm good with bat flips and fist pumps, and cool intro music and stealing bases in blowouts and all sorts of things that make the "play the game the way it was meant to be played" crowd crazy. Throwing away an out to artificially pad an individual statistic is dumb. And I get the Minor maybe never reached 200 strikeouts before, but in my mind, he still hasn't.

=kcmets post_id=23073 time=1569549683 user_id=53] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=23041 time=1569533033 user_id=68]It's like my personal Susquehanna Hat Company.

Teach him how to throw a changeup. Any third pitch really. Just to mix it up. I think the ball goes back to normal and he dominates next year.

FREE DOM SMITH (Not at the expense of Pete of course)

Looking back, I think my give up day ended up being the Matz start in game 1 of the Colorado series. Even after losing to the Dodgers, I found myself thinking "If we win out, then blah blah blah". But once we lost that first game, I think I knew it was done.

I guess the thread from the spring has been relegated to the archives. Here are the pre-season predictions from FiveThirtyEight. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-mlb-predictions/https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-mlb-predictions/ They did pretty well. Of the six projected division winners, three won their divisions, and five have made the playoffs. The last one (Cleveland), is still in a fight for the WC. The Dodgers were projected to be the top team in the NL and ended up that way. Same with the Astros and Yankees in the AL. Three teams were projected to win less than 70 (Orioles, Tigers, Marlins) and they have not disappointed. None of those three teams have even hit 60. Atlanta really outplayed their projections and will finish 10+ of their projection. The Red Sox saw the opposite and will likely fall 10+ games short of their 95 win preseason number. The Mets were projected to finish 85-77 and tie with the Cardinals for the WC. The Mets are on pace for that exact record (though we hope better), but the WC threshold ended up being higher. Most of that is due to Atlanta significantly exceeding expectations, as mentioned above. They were projected to win 84 games but have won 97 and counting (though I suggest they are done counting!). I guess some of that is due to them outplaying their Pythagorean record, and some due to the bounceback from Josh Donaldson and some of their pitchers exceeding expectations. Had Atlanta played to expectations, Washington (89 wins projected) would have won the division and the Brewers and Mets would be playing Monday. Stupid Braves. What does this tell us? Nothing we didn't know. The projections aren't dispositive, but they're a pretty good indication of what you can expect. And though it's certainly possible to play significantly above or below expectations, it's not so likely that one can simply disregard the projections. So my suggestion to Brodie and anyone else monitoring the off-season: If the projections say you will win 85 games, don't stop improving the team.

Back to Beltran. He was here for six and a half years. He lost about a year with his knee injury but was productive for the remaining five and a half. For about 4 of those 6.5 years, he put up numbers as good as any Met ever. Even 2005 (his "bad" year), he had a .744 OPS and 2.9 WAR. And oh yeah, he played the last two months with a broken face. Five time All-Star, MVP votes in 4 seasons, three Gold Gloves, two Silver Sluggers. He is 3rd all time in WAR among Mets position players (trails Wright and Strawberry). Fourth all time in OPS (Olerud, Wright, Piazza). He's in the top 10 in nearly every Mets offensive category. Will go into the Hall of Fame with a Mets logo on his cap. No brainer.

CF last winter: "...and you figure the rotation will take a step back with deGrom regressing towards the norm..." https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/sites/csnchicago/files/styles/article_hero_image/public/2018/11/15/1115_jacob_degrom.jpg?itok=7IP_Ge4i> Ha. That's cute. Leads the NL in WAR, WHIP, Strikeouts. Second in FIP and ERA. Crown the man.

Most of the time I find it hard to believe that a Met has actually hit 50 HRs. Other times I find it surprising that no one in our history has ever randomly gone off for 50. Like it would be totally Mets for the record to be held by Butch Huskey or Richard Hidalgo and never have that guy hit more than 20 HRs again. Let's hope that's not the case with Pete. I also remember thinking that the Mets first no-hitter would result in a loss.

I know. I'm just saying. It's funny to have two brothers on such opposite extremes. But then again, my brother and I are like that too. He's funny looking and I'm dashing.

We need runs. We are playing at home. Let's sit JD Davis.

I don't have a problem with Carter, or Hernandez. I think there are players or managers who transcend their stats. Casey Stengel isn't on the wall for his Mets managerial record. I don't always agree with Tom Verducci, but I saw this quote: "I cannot conjure a single image of Gary Carter with anything but a smile on his face. I have no recollection of a gloomy Carter, not even as his knees began to announce a slow surrender ... Carter played every day with the joy as if it were the opening day of Little League. Gary actually took a lot of grief from his teammates for being a straight arrow. It wasn't the cool thing to do but on the same token, I think he actually served as a role model for a lot of these guys as they aged. He was the ballast of that team. They did have a lot of fun, there's no question about that, but they were also one of the fiercest, most competitive teams I've ever seen and obviously their comebacks from the '86 postseason defines that team. Carter was a huge part of that." I don't think he was a phony. Seemed to put his money where his mouth was. His foundation supports schools where students live in poverty. My Dad worked with him on several charity events and was impressed by their interactions. He's buried in the same small cemetery with my nephew and grandparents. I always walk over to pay my respects to him when I am there for them. For what it's worth, I don't think Gary Carter was phony either. I think he was openly self-centered. Campaigned to be Mets manager while Randolph held the job. Spoke openly about how he felt he was HOF worthy. Threw himself a HOF party in anticipation of getting inducted first ballot (he wasn't). I didn't know about the MVP griping but i'm not at all surprised. But none of this was done maliciously. I think he was just shockingly unaware of how he came across. I don't think he took grief from his teammates just for being a straight arrow. I think it's incredibly grating to be around someone that self-centered who has no idea that being self-centered is an annoying trait.

Frayed Knot wrote: I'm generally not a numbers guy (couldn't tell you 3/4 of the uni numbers of the CURRENT players) but even I can't imagine them issuing #5 in the future and retirement soon beats the limbo situations of these quasi-retired numbers (24, 8). ...That'll give me both more time to evaluate his career and to look up his number. This is funny. If only there was a website run by a close relative who is a numbers guy where you could look up that number...

Edgy MD wrote: There are a lot of Mets fans who irrationally hate Beltran. And more than a few with a fake patriotic stick up their asses about Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Then there are the entitled cherry-picking turdz who are going to make the playoff-ending strikeout the summary of his career, when he is possibly (or even probably) the BEST POST-SEASON PLAYER EVER. Part of me says the Mets need to roll out tributes to Beltran carefully and deliberately — get him into the booth for a visit or two, get photo ops for him with children in Mets hats. This sort of rehabilitation of his image wouldn't be because anything about him seriously needs rehabilitating, but to save the embarrassment of a tribute being ruined by a loud minority. The other part wonders if it's better to just let entitled loud-mouthed idiots humiliate themselves in public. It's also possible that Beltran wants nothing to do with the Mets. At least as far as ownership is concerned. They pushed him to play hurt, pushed leaks and whispers how he was "soft". Imagine that. The guy that played through a broken face being soft. Finally went ahead against the Mets orders and got the surgery that saved his career. Beltran is probably a better person than me, because if I were Carlos I would pretend I had no idea who was calling when Jeff started throwing out dates for the ceremony.

It's crazy how undervalued Beltran is by Mets fans. No way he should be an "oh yeah" guy. He's beloved at every other stop.

Wright and Beltran.

Ok. Here's my revised list. This time with actual research. The Met most deserving of having his number retired is Beltran. This is really a no-brainer. He is a Hall of Famer, who played more games with the Mets than any other team. His numbers were better with the Mets than at any other stop in his career. He is one of the top position players the Mets have had all time. Arguably top 3. In no way less than top 5. Two way player, great teammate. End of discussion. Next is Wright. He won't make the Hall of Fame, but was well on his way before injuries derailed him. I know, we could say this about a lot of players, but this is a subjective criteria. Lifelong Met, career leader in nearly every category. Team captain, beloved during his entire career. Worthy of the exception. I think I would draw the line here. No other numbers go on the wall. Koosman was before my time, but it looks like he was a very good pitcher who was at times great. 12 year Met career, never seriously considered for the Hall of Fame. If you retire his number, you pretty much have to retire Gooden's as well. Gooden has similar overall numbers (WAR, ERA etc), but had a period of dominance that Koos never had. If it were up to me, I'd say no to both, but if you retire one, you have to retire the other. As far as position players, Carter is a no. Likely the least qualified among those in the discussion. Batmags is right. 2 good seasons only. Keith is closer, but still a no. He played 6.5 seasons as a Met, 4.5 good ones, 1 ok one. 1 bad one. I don't think it's enough. Straw is the only borderline candidate. 8 seasons as a Met and was awesome in all 8. If he went on to finish his HOF career, his number would already be on the wall, but unfortunately he never really put it together again outside of his first season in LA. I would be inclined to take a pass on Darryl, but if you retire Koos and Gooden, Darryl deserves to be there too. Retiring 24 for Mays is silly. So in summary, I'd retire 15 and 5. Leave all other numbers in circulation. As far as predictions, I think the Mets will retire 15, 5, 36, 16, 17 and 18. And each announcement will come as a cover for bad news (selling at the deadline, Mets FA signing with another team, mathematical elimination).

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=22748 time=1569364843 user_id=68] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=22746 time=1569364557 user_id=68] Significant is open to Interpretation. And David Wright fits this criteria because .......?

Or, it could be that Koos is 76 years old and they want to do this not only when he's alive, but when he's of sound mind. I always assume the worst when it comes to the Wilpons too, but here, there may be a less selfish reason. Though I'm sure they're well aware of what you mentioned. I never really thought Koos fit the bill of "retire his number" good, but he was before my time. I defer to you guys. I would vote: Yes: 1. Beltran 2. Wright 3. Carter Maybe: 1. Gooden No to everyone else. Can you explain your case for why Carter deserves to have his number retired but Koosman doesn't? I have no idea what Carter did to deserve to have his number retired that Koosman himself didn't do 25 times over. Carter is third on your list? I'm not sure Carter cracks my first dozen. He meets the criteria of "Hall of Famer who played a significant part of his career with the Mets". World Champion. As I mentioned, Koos was before my time. His omission is based on ignorance rather than reason.

Or, it could be that Koos is 76 years old and they want to do this not only when he's alive, but when he's of sound mind. I always assume the worst when it comes to the Wilpons too, but here, there may be a less selfish reason. Though I'm sure they're well aware of what you mentioned. I never really thought Koos fit the bill of "retire his number" good, but he was before my time. I defer to you guys. I would vote: Yes: 1. Beltran 2. Wright 3. Carter Maybe: 1. Gooden No to everyone else.

Mets win every game. Everyone else loses every game. Mets win the first WC and the second WC gets cancelled because no playoff team should lose their last five games.

An early look at how much work the Mets are facing as we look at 2020. The simple facts. We are 14.5 games behind Atlanta for the division. 3rd Place. We are 4.5 games out of the second WC. 4th place overall. We should win somewhere around 85-86 games. We never really competed for the division, but were in the WC mix until mid-September. If the goal is the division (and it should be), we have to figure out how to make up 14-15 games on Atlanta. If you're ok with a play-in game (and you shouldn't be) then the goal is a bit easier. Atlanta has 96 wins and counting. But they're Pythagorean record is 89-68. So maybe they are actually a low 90's win team, rather than a high 90s/100 win team. (The Mets are just about even with their Pythagorean record). Still, you figure they have to make up 9-10 games on them at least. Atlanta was 7th in MLB in runs scored. Washington was 8th. The Mets, despite relative health and breakout seasons from McNeil and Alonso, were 13th in offense. The Mets were also 13th in overall pitching (Atlanta was 8th, Washington was 14th). Broken down between SP and the bullpen, the picture gets a little clearer: Starting Pitching: Washington (2nd); Mets (7th); Atlanta (10th) Bullpen: Atlanta (11th); Mets (26th); Washington (30th!!!) And finally, fielding. The Mets with -29.7 DRS were 27th in the league. Atlanta was 7th and Washington was 19th. As far as health, the Mets were extremely lucky. Their top 4 starters will all make 30 starts. Stroman and Vargas will combine for another 30. Their top 3 hitters (Alonso, Conforto, McNeil) all had 500 ABs. Ramos and JD Davis were also healthy. Of their main pieces, only Nimmo and Cano (and Cespedes) missed significant time. I think it would be prudent not to count on luck repeating itself. So where does that leave us. Obviously the easiest place to start it the bullpen. Everyone agrees this needs significant upgrades. I don't know that there are a lot of free agent options out there besides Chapman (pass) and Betances (big question mark). But Brodie and company have their work cut out for them. As far as offense, a 13th ranked offense is not going to cut it. Especially if you figure they will be a bit unluckier with injuries, and Alonso may have some regression. Maybe you offset some by a full year of JD Davis, and the (hopeful) return of Cespedes. Still, this offense has to be upgraded in some way. The problem is there are very few places it can be done. You are set at 1B, SS, C, and all three OF Positions. 2B is occupied by Cano who is not moveable, and McNeil has to play someplace. I dunno. Maybe you can package a guy or two in a trade and bring in an impact bat. But I'm not sure I want Brodie to be in charge of any more trades. Same thing with the defense. Most of these guys are back next year. So I guess you just hope they improve (like Amed did). The easy one is the starting pitching. We can't afford any downgrade from what we already have. This means keeping Wheeler or replacing him with someone better. If Oswalt/Lockett/Flexen are making starts in 2020, this will also mean failure (the very last thread I started on the old board was how we needed one more starter). Bring in a veteran who can also give you long relief if the rotation is healthy. Lots of options available this winter. One thing I would NOT do is trade Syndergaard. That would be dumb. Which is why we will spend all winter listening to trade rumors for Noah.