Centerfield

Edgy MD wrote: This has happened before. And could well happen again. It's not just the Mets. Right. And not just the NBA, it happened in MLB. I asked the question (must be 5 pages ago now), if the Player's Association made no objection when the DBacks hired Dave Stewart, why would there be an objection now? And putting aside whether it's a smart move or not, if hiring an agent was acceptable for another team in the past, the Wilpons would be completely justified in thinking its an acceptable move now. I'm the first to pile on the Wilpons, but I see nothing improper about what they did here. Look, I think any sane person can see that there are clear conflicts of interest. It looks like there are protocols to address those conflicts of interest, and it looks like the Mets complied. I wholeheartedly agree that the effectiveness of those protocols are probably not great, and that these protocols are more likely to reduce the appearance of a conflict of interest, rather than actually remove them, but whatever. If the Mets played within the rules, you can't beat them up for that.

Why would Miami want a guy going into his walk year? And I’d rather keep Alonso than give him up for Realmuto. Even straight up.

This is such a stupid conversation. Before you definitively say it's not a conflict of interest, look up what it means and check first. And you're the one asking for critical thinking? deGrom tells BVW confidential information since BVW is his agent. How much he'll take. His preferences. Concerns over a nagging injury, etc. deGrom can freely tell him because BVW is his fiduciary. Their interests are aligned. They want deGrom to make as much money as possible. BVW is not allowed to then go to the other side and negotiate against deGrom. He learned valuable information about deGrom in his role as his fiduciary. BVW, in his new role as Mets GM is looking to drive the price down. He can use the confidential information against deGrom, and to his own benefit, which is to drive the price down. This is such a basic concept it makes me angry to have to explain it. You know what I do for a living. Do you really think you understand conflicts of interest better than me?

Ceetar wrote: Van Wagenen doesn't have any conflict of interest. The risk is one of spoiled confidences, trusted personal information that may have now be in the teams hand that otherwise wouldn't have, but we don't even know if there's much of that or what possible consequences it could have. Maybe he knows deGrom really really loves NY and has told him he'll take a hometown discount, and that'll cost him $30 million or something. Would a lawyer who's helped a person sue his employer later be allowed to become an executive at that same company? Are there legal grounds that prevent that? That's probably the parallel. Trust me when I say this. You could not be any more wrong.

You figure one of those hologram tours for Queen can't be too far away.

I believe he is saying, for the first time, that there is a hierarchy among the three. And Minaya is at the top of it.

41Forever wrote: I think it makes sense for someone to surround himself with good people. Yeah, and if scouting and development are a weakness for Van Wagenen, then Omar's a good choice. I just don't want him anywhere near the decision process when it comes to making trades etc. I agree that making a change simply for the sake of making a change is not necessary. Not sure how smart or useful Ricco or Ricciardi are. Although wasn't Ricciardi once a GM of Toronto? I guess that experience might be helpful.

Omar Minaya is set to become the top advisor for Brodie. Cynical Take: Omar is back at GM with a really expensive spokesman.

To clarify, each of those paragraphs was intended as a separate answer. (not one long one) I don't know anything about media training, so I defer to you on that ground. But if I were his attorney I'd advise him to avoid making false or preposterous statements easily refuted during cross.

I mean, look at this lineup. 1. Nimmo - CF 2. McNeil - 2B 3. Conforto LF 4. Bruce - RF 5. Frazier - 3B 6. Smith - 1B 7. Rosario - SS 8. Plawecki - C In this lineup, the top 3 are arguably good. Conforto is legimately good. Good track record, All-Star caliber player. Nimmo was great, but only has 1 year under his belt. And McNeil could be great but only has 225 career ABs. After that you have 5 guys who failed to reach .700 in OPS. Five guys, including your cleanup hitter, with an OPS in the .600's. On what planet is that a good lineup?

I thought Brody handled himself well. "Do you have a good everyday line-up?" He gave the best answer -- "Yes, and we're going to build on that foundation." I disagree with you here. I don't think this is a good answer, and certainly not the best answer. The best answer cannot be an answer that is demonstrably false. What is a good lineup? I think generally the top ten are "good". The middle ten are "average", and the bottom ten are "bad". The Mets were 23rd in runs scored last season. They were bad. Even if you take a more binary approach and say the top 15 are good, and the bottom 15 are bad, the Mets are still bad. You can't be in the bottom third of your pool and be considered good. When you say something is good, when it is clearly not, it undermines your credibility. This makes you come across either as a liar or foolish. Better answers acknowledge a weakness but stress the work being done to address that weakness. And they're easy. Even if you don't want to commit to big upgrades. "Do we have a good lineup today? I don't think we have a game today Mike. Ask me that question in March. If the answer is no, then I haven't done my job." "Good lineup? Potentially good. I know the results are not there, but we have some pieces that we think are ready to arrive in 2019. We saw a little of that in the second half last year. We have others that we know can bounce back, and we are working to add pieces to bring that ceiling even higher. So yes, I'm very excited about the potential of this lineup." (I feel like this would have been Sandy's answer) "No, but I think a lot of teams don't have a good lineup in November. We know we need to score more runs in 2019. Some of that will happen organically as some of our young hitters come into their own. We have others that will revert back to form. 2018 Jay Bruce wasn't a good hitter. 2019 Jay Bruce could be an all-star. So no, we're not good today, but I think we'll be good in 2019, and I think many of the key pieces of that lineup are already within the organization." Or, if you're actually committed to spending money and improving: "No, not today. But that's why they hired me Mike. If we were already good, they could have hired you."

Well sure. I don't know if he meant it as a literal one for one, but generally yes. The danger in saying "we're better than the numbers" is that the speaker will consider all the reasons we should be better, but fail to consider all the reasons we might be worse.

David Price elects to stay in Boston. No word yet on Kershaw. He has until midnight tonight.

I hear what you are saying, but it's dangerous to start arguing we are better than our numbers because of this factor or that. You are what your numbers say you are. I get that we finished the second half better, but there's nothing saying Vargas and Matz won't pitch like they did in the first half again. In fact, they might pitch like the first half for all of 2019. We should expect some regression from deGrom for no other reason than it's not reasonable to ask someone to be that good twice. Every year we talk about how we would have been better if Noah hadn't missed significant time. And while I do think Wheeler's improvement is for real, I don't think he's as good as he pitched in that second half. Remember, a lot of those starts came against SF and Miami. I mean, if I had to bet, I would say that I think our rotation will be better than the Braves in 2019, but I don't think we can say they are better until they are actually better. And I'd like to see Jason Vargas not ever make another start for the Mets.

I hope Brodie was not selected for this job because he was the most delusional about how good the Mets presently are.

BVW: I know you usually ask the questions here, but I got one for you. Who in the National League East is going to beat us, and why? Paraphrased. Mike responds by citing the Braves. He says he'd take the Braves lineup over the Mets, then says to Brodie, "Wouldn't you?" Brodie then dodges the question. Something like "The Braves have a good young team, but they haven't won any World Series." It's an exchange where they both look bad. It was a pretty stupid position for Brodie to take. And for all the talk about how smart this man it, it wasn't a great first impression. All of this will mean nothing if they go out and actually improve this club. But if the argument he submitted is indicative of his actual thinking, the we're fucked.

And let's be honest. Chris Russo carried that show. Mike's role was to be his spoil, which he did well. But if Francesa is paired with anyone else, that show goes nowhere.

Francesa is stupid and an ass. He made up half of a New York institution during his prime, but that time is gone. I imagine some of that bitterness comes from knowing that. That being said, he is right this one time. It's no excuse for being a dickhead, but he is actually right. Saying that our everyday lineup is "good" is a ridiculous answer. The Mets were 23rd in runs scored this year. Atlanta had a top 10 offense, and so did Washington. Philadelphia, even as they faded, still ended up scoring more runs than the Mets. Brodie asked Francesa, who in the NL East is going to beat them. The simple answer is Atlanta. They beat the Mets by 13 games. They were 10th in runs scored, the Mets were 23rd. Their bullpen was 17th in ERA. The Mets were 28th. And starting pitching, which is supposed to be our strength, Atlanta was ranked 4th. We were 6th. They do everything better than us.

From the looks of it, it doesn't appear that the press conference was an unmitigated disaster. So maybe there's hope that this regime won't be either. I remind you that when this thread started in August, we were looking at Gary LaRoque, and quotes like this: There is thought among team officials that perhaps the Mets became too analytics driven in recent seasons under Sandy Alderson’s watch, and a veteran leader with a pure baseball background would help shift the organization toward the center. As bmfc said at the time: Dear God. Brodie doesn't seem like he'll move away from analytics. And considering we were resigned to Doug Melvin a week ago, I feel like it certainly could have been worse. Maybe those guys are right that BVW will be successful in getting the Wilpons to open up their wallets. And maybe Broham is slick enough to steer Jeff away from bad ideas, and plant seeds that makes Jeff think he came up with all the good ideas by himself. Maybe Bro takes Wilpon out for drinks with the boys, gets a few strippers, makes him feel like one of the cool kids, then when he's lit, convinces him that his proposal to extend Vargas for 6 years is a bad idea. The guy went to Stanford, worked his way to the top of his field, and is by all accounts, smart. We'll see, I guess. "Hey Jeff, meet Mystique and Aura. They think it's a good idea to engage with Bryce Harper. Girls, can you take Jeff to the champagne room and tell him all about your plan?"

HahnSolo wrote: Not one question on building your own staff, nor about Callaway. Nor payroll. Ridiculous. There's that hard-hitting NY media for you.

It occurs to me that when the Yankees traded for Stanton, Wilpon called it "unsustainable". It occurs to me that Jeff and I might be using the word "sustain" in very different ways.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: As a top agent, Van Wagenen knows the state of play in the league and understands both player evaluation and valuation; CAA, like many big sports agencies, has an in-house analytics shop that almost certainly dwarfs the tiny team that the Wilpons grudgingly allowed to former GM Sandy Alderson in both size and sophistication. There’s not much that Van Wagenen will need to do as a GM that he hasn’t done at least a little bit of as an agent, although he’s more experienced in some areas than others. This was very encouraging. Maybe Fred didn't think Bloom was analytical enough! "Jeff, get me that agent guy, and tell him to bring his entire analytics department!"

I'm not criticizing the Mets for "not being innovative enough". I don't need the Mets to be innovative. I just want them to be good. Understand what I am saying. Right now, the best teams in baseball have given us a blueprint on how to do it. Spending money, analytics, tear down rebuilds, there are ways to win. I am totally fine with the Mets following these paths to success. Hiring Chaim Bloom would have been a great first step towards that. Do what other successful clubs do. The Mets chose not to do that. They went in a different direction. Advocates of this direction are calling it "innovative". Is it? Innovative means that there is a new way of thinking. New ideas, new techniques. If this is the case, we haven't seen any of this yet. You can't call it innovative, until you see the new line of thinking. Moneyball? Innovative. Advanced stats? Innovative. "Fuck, I'm lost. Let's just hire the agent." NOT INNOVATIVE.

See, I think if you're playing odds, Bloom was far and away the candidate that maximized the probability of success. Ng, second, BVW third, and Melvin last. But again, that's based on the information I have, not what the Wilpons have. I certainly hope that the Wilpons were presented something by BVW that gave him the edge. I would love to know what that is, but I understand that we may never know. Nor do I really care if he's successful. Maybe it will come out years later. I hope that this wasn't a case of the two Wilpons being unable to agree, and compromising on BVW just so that neither guy got his man. If I had to guess now, realizing that I am cynical and biased toward thinking the Wilpons are bumbling idiots, I would guess that it was Melvin all along. Bloom got a courtesy interview to make it seem like the Mets were open to analytics, and BVW was there just to round out the candidates. The response to Melvin was overwhelmingly negative, so they were stuck. Fred wasn't going to let Jeff get his nerd guy, so BVW it was.

Ceetar wrote: I reject this 'baseball lifer' stuff that only people that have been GMs before are good GMs going forward. I agree with this. Especially with advanced stats, etc. And for the record, I think BVW could be great. But he just as easily could be terrible. We'll have to wait and see.