Centerfield

Lock them up! Elite starting pitching is the toughest thing to find in baseball. I think the Mets will try to extend all three and build around them. I don't know if this is necessarily true or not, but to the extent that I think it is, I think it's even truer to say that elite starting pitching is the toughest thing to sustain, which is why teams fear to tread where fans rush in. I agree with this. But if you're going to win a championship, risks have to be taken and fingers crossed. The way I see it, a championship team needs good starting pitching. You can: 1. Develop it within your system 2. Trade for it 3. Sign Free Agents The Mets have developed these guys, but there's no one else coming down the line. They don't really have the chips to trade for elite starters, and if you're going to sign free agents, you pay anyway. Might as well get your own guys.

Advantage, Mets.

Now that the Mets have been eliminated from the NL East race, batmags' contention of 2 division titles in the last 30 years has come to pass. In this thread, it's well established that the Mets have been one of the most unsuccessful teams by several measures of sustained success. Now we can add another to the list. By pure chance, the Mets should win a 5 team division 6 times in a 30 year span. (Since the NL East was 6 teams at the beginning of this run, the number is slightly less but I don't know how to do that math) That's before you factor in: 1. They've shared this division with the Marlins, who have been actively tanking for long stretches, and have been one of the worst teams in baseball. 2. They used to share this division with the Expos, who tanked even worse than the Marlins, and eventually had to move to Washington 3. We play in NY, the country's largest market. So all of this begs the question. Why? How is it possible to be this bad? I mean, I have my theories. I think it's a combination of many factors, but I can clearly identify a few key ones. What say you? Why have the Mets been so bad, and what can be done to fix that?

Edgy MD wrote: Anybody want to lay out what size contracts they are willing to proffer? Darvish signed for 6 years, 21 per. Arrieta signed for 3 years, 25 per. All three are better than these guys. So on the free market they'd be $25 million plus. But they're not yet free agents yet. deGrom is the best of them, but he's already 30 years old. Buying out his last two years before free agency is worth something. I don't know 6 years, 25 per year? That's $150 million. Wheeler is the closest to FA. But he's had a history of arm troubles. Maybe you get away with four years. Noah, I have no idea. He's multiple years away, but has had trouble staying healthy the past few years. I don't even know where you start.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I would make my first order of business locking up Jake deGrom, Noah Syndergaard, and Zack Wheeler. Well, maybe not first order of business, but it would definitely be at or near the top of my offseason to-do list. All three might be a bit of a stretch, so I'd focus first on deGrom and Wheeler. Syndergaard has a little more runway before free agency kicks in. Yup. I'd kick the tires on Conforto too, but he's a Boras guy so who knows. But it's hard to see the Mets extending their pitchers, getting more offense and upgrading their bullpen.

So I guess it's official now. So I'd be curious to know from the "money doesn't guarantee winning" and "at least the Wilpons aren't Charles Manson" crowd, what they think is the reason for this level of failure.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Wow! Lol. My thoughts exactly. What a joke.

I keep telling myself that draft order matters little in baseball. But man I see this list and think all these assholes get to pick ahead of us.

Struggling with this more than I expected I would. I mean, it's no surprise at all to hear that David Wright is done. We've all known it was coming. But I found I was in no mood to watch the press conference, or to see the video tributes or anything. Life is just unfair. And I know that any one of us here would love to have the "unfair" deck of cards David was dealt, but he was and is legitimately one of the best guys in the game. No one deserved to play until age 50 more than him. A dickhead like Clemens gets to play until forever, but our terrific guy has his career cut short. Fuck these baseball gods.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: But you really do have to have a sense of the budget to know whether or not a pursuit of Machado is even realistic. Yup. Also, understand this. There is no way ceetar is "indifferent" about budget and payroll. Fans who are indifferent to budget/payroll simply ignore those discussions. That's not ceetar. He actively argues against it. Goes out of his way to reiterate how little it matters. Characterizes those who care about it as hysterical by using phrases like "I don't throw a fit and spike my blood pressure". This isn't someone who doesn't care. This is someone who wants to affirmatively downplay the importance of the budget. There are those in the media who subscribe to this school of thought. I always thought they did so to endear themselves to the owners. Maybe get an inside track or something. But there are is a contingent of fans who do this also. Again, I have no explanation as to why they do this.

How quickly Dom Smith went from "trade him for a bag of balls" to "let's hit him cleanup!"

Honestly. Sometimes I have no idea where you are going with your arguments. Anyway, I think it's apparent to you, and anyone who takes the trouble to read through our exchange, that an increased budget is an advantage. That's why I advocate for it. No one can tell you the right way to be a fan. But you, other fans like you, members of the media etc., who pretend like money doesn't matter...I don't get it. But to each his own.

seawolf17 wrote: So we started the season 11-1, and in the two months after the all-star break, Wheeler and deGrom are the only pitchers in the NL with sub-2.00 ERAs. We must be leading the division by like 30 games. Don't forget Noah Syndergaard. He's 11-3 with a 3.44 ERA. We have a rookie phenom that no one ever heard of hitting .340 with a .891 OPS. Nimmo has an .890 OPS. Cabrera had a career high .817! 30 games? They must have crowned us champions already.

I'm thrilled about Zack. The only downside to this breakthrough is that he's kinda faced shitty competition. Zack has made 10 starts since the All-Star Break. He's been terrific, only allowing 3 runs once, and that was due to the garbage time HR against his nemesis Bellinger. But his opponents in those starts: 6 Starts against the Bottom 5 offenses in MLB: Miami (2x), San Francisco (2x), Baltimore, San Diego. His start in SF (7 IP, 1 ER) is his only loss. 2 Starts against Top 10 Offenses: Dodgers, Atlanta 1 Start against Washington who just missed the top ten (11th), and 1 Start against Pittsburgh (20th in runs scored) So I guess maybe the jury is still out on him. But certainly, he's taken like 11 steps forward.

I hope that hanging them up was his decision and no one else's.

Centerfield (way back on page 3) wrote: There is a large contingent of fans that, despite wanting to win, are completely indifferent to whether or not the Mets spend like a big market club. I don't really get why. Maybe they believe there is no actual advantage offered by spending? I don't know. If they do, then they're wrong. But more often than not I get the feeling they know the truth, but elect to use twisted logic to justify a logically unjustifiable position. Emphasis added.

Ceetar wrote: I think I already stated extra money is obviously an advantage in building a team. Given that we agree that extra money is an advantage in building a team, please pick which applies: (a) I want the Mets GM to have extra money to build a roster. ( I do NOT want the Mets GM to have extra money to build a roster. © I am indifferent to whether or not the Mets GM is given extra money to build a roster.

Ceetar wrote: yes, obviously, you haven't introduced any of the downside yet. Where's the part where they demand you trade your nearly as valuable infielder in order to afford that stud outfielder? Nobody is making any demands on you. Remember, you are the GM of the Angels, not the Mets. All you are getting is extra money each year. So if you agree that extra money is an advantage to making the playoffs in one year, and extra money is an advantage to making the playoffs in a 5 year period, are you willing to agree that generally, extra money is an advantage?

Ok. Same scenario. You are the GM of the Angels, your left hand is on the line etc. You are now told to make the playoffs 3 out of the next five years. Your choices for a budget are $900 million over those five years, or $450 over those five years. You can mix and match that money however you see fit. Do you: 1. Still take the $900 million over the $450? 2. Does the extra $90 million each year (average) help you in attaining your goal of 3 playoff berths (or more) over the next 5 years?

Does the extra $90 million increase the chances you make the playoffs in 2019?

Was thinking about this last night. As much as I'd love to see this guy come in and whip the Wilpons into shape, in the end, this is not realistic. Specifically, *No one this smart and this strong would want to work for the Wilpons. *The Wilpons would never hire a guy like that. *Even if by some miracle it happened, the Wilpons would eventually meddle and fuck everything up. *I think the Wilpons are really overleveraged. And no GM in the world can fix that. *They're hiring Mark Shapiro or someone worse.

What a bomb by Rosario. Everyone dye their hair blonde.

Why would you pick B?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Or you know, Greg Yeah. Really. I can't imagine anyone knowing more about the Mets than Greg. In fact, I can't imagine anyone knowing more about anything than Greg knows about the Mets.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It's still three first-place finishes in thirty years. 1988 hasn't dropped off the other end yet. And 2018 isn't over yet!