Centerfield

metirish wrote: Martino towing the company line now about the money Whatever the money I pretty much like this trade for the Mets, even though a lot of GM's don't. Bvw stirring it up and trying to win. Which is what he said he would do. That's about to get really interesting It’s a shocking quote.

The best way is to think of this as two trades: Cano for Bruce and Swarzak is one. I was thinking of this as two separate deals as well. If it were just Cano for the two vets I think most would be at least semi-OK with it and it certainly (likely anyway) makes us a better team for '19-'20 Which leaves the remaining question as to whether Dunn + Kelenic are too much for an established, and top line, closer. You question the idea of giving up not just a 1st round pick but a #6 overall, and doing so so quickly. That said he's a loonggg way from the majors (220 rookie lg ABs to date) and the further away a prospect is from the majors the higher he needs to be in potential in order to pry loose a known quantity. Dunn was a somewhat lower pick (#19th) and is further along but hasn't had a great track record to this point (high ERAs until his final 9 starts at PSL this summer). No. This is wrong. If it were Cano alone, no one would touch him with a ten foot pole. Shouldn’t anyway. Swarzak and Bruce combine for what, $30 million? No way you sign a 36 year old PED user to a 5 year $90 million deal. Giving him a 2 year deal is too much. We talk about spending wisely. This is absolutely the polar opposite. So they have to give us Diaz to even consider taking this on. Diaz and Cano are consideration for each other. They cannot be separated. So effectively, you are giving up Kelenic, and Dunn, and Batista and taking on the non Bruce/Swarzak portion of the Cano deal, for Edwin Diaz. A closer. This is fucking insane.

Please let this deal fall apart over money. Please please. Make them pay the whole salary Jeff! Not a penny less! Don’t you dare open that wallet!

Can we still sign him for less? I guess the arthritis thing must be bad. Love Wilmer. But, you know, this is business.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: 24 is retired in Seattle for Ken Griffey Jr. I'd be okay with Cano wearing it as a Met. I love Willie Mays, but it's time to take that number out of mothballs. Rickey Henderson wore it. No reason not to give it to Cano. Except that he will fail his physical and will never be a Met so who cares about his number anyway.

I've been rooting for failed physicals. It's saved our ass once before.

Here's a view from the Seattle News Tribune that's not fully enthusiastic about the deal: Is potential Cano-Diaz trade to Mets too costly for Mariners? Says the Mariners are trading two superstars to get one potential superstar. I'm happy to give them back their two superstars. Let's call the whole thing off.

Per Ken Rosenthal, Mariners GM DiPoto was said to be "euphoric" over the return for Cano and Diaz.

I hate this trade. Not just for what it might be if Kelenic is good, or if Diaz blows out his elbow, but because of what it signals right now. 1. Money. It always comes down to this doesn't it? Understand this. When we trade our high-priced veterans, we make the other teams pay full freight. This is why we get dick back in return. The only piece that has been useful in all of our mid-season dumps is Gerson Batista. And he's only useful because he's the throw-in for this trade. He's the piece that literally no one cares we are giving up. But when we take veterans back, we hold them up for as much money as possible. Meaning we have to give up two of our best prospects. You want to talk about sustained success? You don't trade chips like Kelenic for salary relief. And that's what it is. If we eat more money on Cano, Kelenic is not part of this deal. 2. The idea of a fair trade. I'm reading things like "If both sides think it's bad, it's a pretty good trade." Yes, this is generally true. You know when it's not true? When one side is hampered with an expensive star with a full no trade. Giancarlo Stanton. Ken Griffey Jr. These are the trades that look one-sided. And anyone says "Why couldn't the Mariners get more value for Griffey?", someone will point to the no trade clause and it all makes sense. No trade clause trades are one-sided. They handicapped team gets fleeced. This is why you try to avoid no-trades. It is unspeakably break even in a trade where the other guy has the no trade. If the returns are close enough to be deemed fair, you've lost. And here, I think we lost the trade outright. In a deal where we had all the leverage in the world and Seattle had none, we somehow came out behind. This speaks very poorly to Brodie's ability to make future trades where we don't have a mountain of leverage on our side. On top of this, I think Cano will decline fast, and I think the Mets will not take the money they saved and spend it on elite talent. I think Kelenic is going to be a star, and we are going to regret this for years. But we can save that for another day. I hate this trade for those reasons that we know are true today.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Hopefully Syndergaard is not their path to re-stocking the top of the farm system, but I think that may be likely. This is scary. Wouldn't we have been better off just making Syndergaard our closer?

How do you lose a trade where the other team is hamstrung by a full no trade. We will see what an obstacle that is when we try to move Cano next season.

metirish wrote: BTW , CF on Twitter is great to follow Thanks Irish!

Maybe Melvin would have been better after all.

Also. I suck at scouting. Panned Noah after his debut. Was high on Cecchini, plawecki and Lagares coming into the year. Always thought Montero was on the verge of turning it around. Loved Victor Diaz. To be fair I loved Nimmo even before this year. And predicted great things for Conforto. But that’s kind of an easy one.

Edgy MD wrote: Centerfield wrote: Dilson Herrera was not in the same class as Alonso. That’s why no one cared. Wait. Do I misremember? I thought you were more bullish on Herrera than most. I was. But few others were. He never had the success of Alonso and never had close to the upside. Like I’m high on Cecchini. But I know enough not to sweat his call up date.

metsmarathon wrote: i'm intrigued by the possibility of the WATP that mlb.com just sent out... cano | edwin diaz | mallex smith for andres giminez | justin dunn | dom smith | jay bruce i'm not sure if i'm intrigued enough to pull the trigger on it, but i like that a heck of a lot more than trading noah. OE: based on steamer projections from fangraphs, that package above would play out to about a 6-win increase for the metsies for '19 I find myself pining for this deal I rejected yesterday.

This is propaganda right? So when the real trade is announced we love it more?

Dilson Herrera was not in the same class as Alonso. That’s why no one cared.

Jim Duquette thinks this is too much to give up. That should tell us something.

Looks like it might happen tonight. God help us. I miss Sandy.

smg58 wrote: So remember when the Phillies owner said they might even “get a little stupid” with their offers this offseason? It’s time to put your money where your mouth is, buddy. I don't see much home. No one outstupids the Mets.

This is what I get for being optimistic. I am fully convinced that the Mets will make not one, but two, catastrophic trades this offseason. One of them (Syndergaard) will be one that people talk about for generations. Ryan. Seaver. Will this franchise never learn?

Frayed Knot wrote: Do keep in mind that Diaz will cost the Mets less in salary for the sum of the four years they'd have him under control than will one, maybe one-plus, seasons of Kimbrel (and you'd have to commit to more than that) - so, if nothing else, that leaves munny available for other purposes. And, yes, you'd have to factor in what Cano will cost, etc. (not going to do any of that now as there are too many moving parts to this - including the part about whether or not any of this is real). But the larger point is that buying closers on the open market hasn't always proven to be a good, or cost-effective, way to go so I understand their thought process here. The details, as they always are, will be the deciding factor as to whether or not this is a good idea. Right. The prize here is Diaz. Young, controllable closer. And what we'd be willing to give up to get him. He is unquestionably linked to Cano. So any monetary advantage to Diaz is immediately offset. In fact, money is a net negative, as Cano costs more than any closer would. So Seattle has to throw in money. Whether or not this is a good deal depends on how much they eat. Another factor is how good you think Cano will be. For me, I don't think he'll be good for very long. He might not be very good even for one year. So if the deal was Cano and Diaz for nothing, I say no. Once Seattle starts asking for McNeil or Kelenic, I hang up and move on.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Diaz definitely makes the bullpen better. Cano is 10 years older than McNeil and he put up a 2.9 WAR to McNeil's 2.7 in 100 more PAs. There is no reason to assume that Cano will be better than Jeff McNeil for the next 5 years. If the Mets don't trust McNeil and want a brand name closer, go sign fucking Kimbrel (BIG SPLASH!) and get Jed Lowrie or some shit. Talking about Kelenic and Dunn and McNeil is st00pid. Yes yes yes. ABNS for GM.

Frayed Knot wrote: HahnSolo wrote: This move has Omar's fingerprints all over it. Throw in a few more prospects and it'll have Steve Phillips' fingerprints all over it. As if on cue, Steve Phillips wonders in a tweet why we would trade our prospects for a closer when there are a plethora of them available as free agents. Um. Ok Steve. I mean, he's right, but. Ya know.