Centerfield

Truly you have a dizzying intellect. I don't think my question is all that complicated. Let's break it down to a simple scenario. You are appointed the GM of Los Angeles Angels. You are told that you have to make the playoffs in 2019. If you do not, they will cut off your left hand. You are given two choices for your budget. Choice A: $90 Million Choice B: $180 Million. Do you pick Choice A, Choice B, or are you indifferent. Remember, you pledged to answer honestly.

I know nothing about Marinak, but if he is anything like Sherman described, I can't think of a better candidate. It sounds though, if Marinak were to happen, that both sides would have to be convinced to go that route. The big traits, though, are having a large understanding of where the game is now, set beliefs on what sustains winning, and the intellect, endurance and backbone to convince, coerce and — ultimately, if necessary — pull ownership out of its familiar habits. This part is interesting. By use of the word "pull", I wonder if Sherman is implying that if ownership won't raise the budget he may pull the "Well I may just have to report you to Manfred..." card. I mean, most likely not. But it's interesting to consider.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, an extra year of control has tremendous value. Even if the player is not the level of Kris Bryant. Another year of Daniel Murphy would have meant he broke out with the Mets, instead of the Nationals. The extra year we got from Wheeler means we don't have to make a decision about him until after next year. An extra year of Familia would have brought back much more in a trade than simply renting him out for 2 months. If d'Arnaud and Flores had broke camp with the club in 2013 instead of debuting mid-year, they would both be gone this year. You don't have to be a star for the extra year to have value. You just have to be a productive major league player. Basically, as long as your career doesn't crater (like Ike Davis), the club will want to keep you around. The Mets have already said they won't bring up Alonso this year. 40 man, getting him enough AB's, whatever. That is done. Now the decision will be whether he breaks camp with the team, or whether they wait a month (assuming he plays well in the spring). I can't say whether the decision to delay his free agency will be a consideration, but it absolutely, positively should. Do we want Peter Alonso under control for 6 years, or do we want him for 7 years minus April? Easy choice in my book.

I know those guys. Nice only when they need to be.

Well, that was fast. In that case, I don't think we can have a productive discussion. We disagree on a fundamental premise. I believe increasing payroll gives teams an advantage in the regular season. I think the advantage has been well-established over the years. Although there have been discussions about how significant the advantage may be, I don't think any one in good faith believes that payroll and winning are independent of each other. If you honestly believe that, then this explains why we cannot have a productive conversation.

Do you believe that a team with a higher payroll is at an advantage when it comes to winning in the regular season? *Note that I am not asking if higher payroll guarantees anything, nor am I asking if higher payroll is more important than any other factor. Just simply, do you think it's an advantage or not.

You said you want to watch Mets baseball, do you also want the Mets to win?

If I engage you in this, do you promise to answer honestly?

Ceetar wrote: Centerfield 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'm indifferent because I want to watch Mets baseball and how much they spend is so divorced from my enjoyment that it's hard to care much. I want them to bring in the right players, and it's not always straight cash. In fact it's rarely cash. It's evaluating needs and which players aren't going to break and a lot of luck involved in those too. I mean, I wanted the Mets to sign Yu Darvish, and I was skeptical about spending money on Arrieta. But the better move very well might've been Jhoulys Chacin. There was vicious attacks launched at the Mets for choosing Vargas over Arrieta or Darvish, for not winning the Ohtani sweepstakes, but no one even mentions Chacin, who costs the same as Vargas. (no one mentions the lefty aspect of Vargas, though I wonder if that played in) There's also the knowledge that teams that spend 'like a big market club' still do usually end up in a rebuild process when those mistakes they overpay for build up. You sign Darvish and he breaks and is added to the Cespedes and Wright contracts, and suddenly any owner is questioning spending more money that's going to get exponentially more expensive at the cap for possibly limited return is worth it, and then you're staring a rebuild in the face. Like going forward, the Mets should spend for Machado, it's a highly logical way to go, though it does require a few pivots with guys like Frazier. There ARE other avenues to success though, and if the Mets bring in players that I think will be fun to watch and give this team good chances to win, I'm going to enjoy 2019. Centerfield wrote: 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.

Just embarrassing. I want to be careful about making this seem like a “It’s weird how the Mets don’t score for deGrom” thing. Yes. They don’t score for him at historic levels. But they suck offensively overall. Even with this recent surge they are 24th OPS. They suck plenty for other pitchers too.

Yes. That’s my understanding. If they leave him down they don’t have to protect him, freeing up that spot for someone else. If they bring him up, he’s on the 40. And someone else is left exposed. I think this, along with the free agency of 2025 are both factors.

41Forever wrote: I think if one or two players did it, it would be considered a “Look at Me” move that would detract from the actual meaning of the day. It surprises me not one bit that you would have a take like this.

Edgy MD wrote: Biting the hand that feeds you is a game that you imagine any competitor should be willing to do, but the money is hewj enough that the conservative choice is the way folks go almost every time. It makes Colin Kaepernick's choice even more remarkable. Agreed. But there is very little risk for a Jay Bruce or Jacob DeGrom.

Maybe I’m naive. But I find it hard to believe that a ML veteran can put on the first responder hats during the pregame then take it off for the game. I feel like if I were a Met, there is no way I would let that go.

I'm hearing words like "guru" and "legend" being used to describe Jay. I get that Horwitz is a pretty good guy. That feeling seems to be widely accepted. But can we take a look at all the Mets PR disasters and agree that this guy was not very good at his job?

Frayed Knot wrote: * I disagree with the notion that Dom is already past his sell-by date to the point where his worth has decreased to 'bag of balls' level. We fans tend to lose patience with rookies and are only too quick to on to the next pretty young thing forgetting why we liked the first girl in the first place Yeah. Not even close. That's why the Mets should be playing him. And if they don't play him, no reason to trade him when his trade value is shot. Frayed Knot wrote: * that Dom doesn't much matter because Alonso has surpassed him anyway and is the clear best choice for 1B in 2019, over Smith or a host of other candidates -- this might turn out to be the case, but it's hardly carved in stone and is a long shot bet at best IMO Yup. Alonso might come up and be terrible. I don't think so, the peripherals on Alonso are pretty good from what I've read. But you never know until he's in the bigs. (and even then it will likely take some time) Frayed Knot wrote: * that the reason Alonso hasn't been called up so far is because mgmt is desperate to manipulate control over him thru 2025 -- I don't even think that's A factor right now and it certainly isn't THE factor I certainly think it is A factor. I think having to protect him in the Rule 5 is a big one. Maybe the main one. Frayed Knot wrote: * but it must be the reason because the cheap-ass Mets do this all the time -- No they don't I don't think getting an extra year of control suggests "cheap". I think it's smart strategy. It goes against the player's benefit, but as BG says, it's a good bet to give away one month in 2019 for an entire year in 2025.

I'm assuming they'll hold Alonso down in the minors for a month or two to prevent his FA clock from starting. It's what they do. and if they didn't bring him up when he was raging hot this year they'll wait to bring him up next year. I'm betting they trade Dom Smith this winter for a bag of balls, and roll with Bruce at first until Alonso comes up. A couple of things here: -- delaying call-ups a month to delay FA-gency ... "it's what they do" Not with Wheeler they didn't, calling him up in mid June Not with Rosario either (Aug) Not Reyes (June - plus he had <1/2 season of AA by that April) Not Wright (Julhttp://www.thecranepool.net/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=2y) Not Conforto (Aug) Not Dom Smith (Aug) Not Nimmo (end of June) Not d'Arnaud (Aug) Not Harvey (end of July) Not Matz (end of June) The closest arguments you've got for that is either Syndergaard or deGrom - both in mid May, or about a month after necessary to gain one FA year. But deGrom was barely even a prospect at the time so there was no reason for that to factor into the decision, so we're down to maybe Syndergaard among the current group as he was at least a top-15 prospect that winter with a full year of AAA under his belt. The other is that I think we're in danger of falling into the 'prospect fatigue' trap with Dom to the point where we've already moved on to the next pretty young thing to come along. They're very different players so it's tough to ever compare the two even though they play the same position. But the idea that many have given up on the younger of the two (Smith) and believe that the older / lower drafted / worse fielder one is already so good that he's being unfairly held back which can only be the result of the delayed FA maneuver is stretching things more than a bit. Alonso had a very nice half-season with the bat in Bingo and a slightly lesser second half in Vegas (though with more power ... but it's Vegas) for a player where his bat is said to be his only asset. The obvious answer has to do with the 40-man roster and Alonso not needing to be protected this winter (meaning someone else can be) and the fact that, yes, they have other folks to try at 1B right now. Bruce is under contract and is also a better bet to hit next year than Alonso. Look, I hope the guy goes on to have a great career but some seem to believe that this is already a done deal. He's simply not the kind of prospect you move things around for simply to delay the possibility that holding control of his rights in the season seven years from now is going to be a valuable asset -- Ike Davis anyone? -- even if the team did have a track record of doing such stuff (which they don't appear to). Maybe I'm not understanding the conversation between you two, but I look at your list and I feel like most of them were delayed a year. I mean, I guess you could argue over what "delay" means. I think the point is that the timing of the call up insures that the club gets 6+ seasons of control rather than just 6 (making the club out of spring training) or less than 6 (calling up the player in April). Every player on your list had 6+ years of control.

Edgy MD wrote: Big-name prospects forcibly held back from appearing until late May also kicks the Rookie of the Year race right in the teeth. I don't see a solution. Unless you say that a year of service time triggers no matter when you debut. I guess you can have a carve-out for September callups or something then.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I do think there's a class of fan that got hardons based on how efficiently their favorite team spends. Yup. My philosophy is this. I want the Mets to win on a sustained level and to ultimately win a championship. Whatever maximizes their chances to do this, for the most part, I'm on board. Because there are mountains of evidence that say spending more increases a team's chances at winning, I want my team to spend more. Because there are mountains of evidence that say the Wilpons are detrimental to winning, I'd like them gone. 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. *I'd rather they focus on scouting. (No one said they shouldn't do both) *Look at San Francisco, they have a huge payroll and they're terrible. (No one claimed spending would guarantee winning) *Look at Houston, they won it all with a mid-level payroll (No one claimed spending was a pre-requisite to winning.) Then there are some fans that want the Mets to win, but if it means spending lots of money, they'd rather not. Like JCL said, I guess they like the fact that their team wins with an economic disadvantage. I don't get this, but to each his own. At least their position is consistent. Then there are some fans that instinctively, without reason, take the side of ownership. They say questioning ownership is undermining your team. You'll hear stuff like "I'm a true fan" or "Hey, I just choose to believe". I don't really get this either.

Maybe somebody will take the field in a first responder hat. And instantly become my favorite Met.

I know that you're kidding, but it's surprising how many baseball fans lose sight of the fact that winning is the ultimate goal. I found the entire article informative, but this part stuck with me. Craig Calcaterra wrote: Sure, if you are the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Cubs or the Dodgers you pretty much have to be in the business of credibly fighting for a World Series championship, but the rest of baseball is a bit more flexible about such things. We live in an age in which keeping payroll low, eschewing expensive veterans in favor of cheap young players and, in some cases, tanking is pretty darn desirable for baseball owners and the sorts of folks who take baseball owners’ side, philosophically speaking. Everyone would like to win, but if you’re not gonna win, raking in revenue while not spending much of it on baseball players is considered a very, very noble thing. If you can do it without catching hell, all the better.

Rumors are circulating about Mark Shapiro. And it's interesting the opinions on Mark Shapiro, depending on who you listen to. Andy Martino, writing for SNY, a guy who is paid by the Wilpons: Shapiro, who publicly reaffirmed his commitment to Toronto after his name first surfaced in connection to the Mets job, is close with Omar Minaya. His father, highly respected veteran agent Ron Shapiro, is friendly with Fred Wilpon. Shapiro was once GM and president of the Cleveland Indians -- an organization steeped in analytics. His resume and stature in the game lend him the gravitas to replace a towering figure like Sandy Alderson. https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/mets-gm-search-update-collins-asked-to-assume-larger-role-keep-eye-on-shapiro/294168810 Steeped in analytics! Stature and gravitas! Sign me up! But wait, what do those who are not on the payroll say? When Shapiro took over — joining new owner Paul Dolan — the Indians were a team that won 90 or so games a year, had attendance of over 3 million a year and boasted a $93 million payroll. Going forward payroll was slashed, bottoming out at $34 million in 2003 and not returning to the level he inherited until 2016. Attendance fell sharply along with the Indians win total during that time too. You’d think that’d be a bad thing but Shapiro earned a promotion for that, taking over as the team’s president following the 2010 season. The promotion implied to many that, to Paul Dolan, keeping costs low was more important than winning baseball games and making fans happy. Well, that doesn't sound as good. But I'm sure it's just a coincidence that immediately after he went to the Blue Jays, the Indians won the division twice and are now on their way to a possible third. But he did great in Toronto right? The Jays were stuck with a lot of carryover money in 2016 and 2017, but they reduced payroll heading into this season and, thanks to some big trades and expiring contracts, about 2/3 of their guaranteed commitments are disappearing once the season ends. Their 2019 payroll is likely to be vastly, vastly lower than it has been for the past several years....It’s too early to say if the Blue Jays plan to add free agents or other established big league talent to complement those prospects or if, as happened in Cleveland in the early-to-mid 2000s, a bunch of third and fourth place finishes and losing records are in Toronto’s future. What we do know is this: the Blue Jays have gotten worse in each of the past three years, they will likely be bad for the next couple of years and their payroll is spiraling down as well. Shapiro is spending a lot of time focusing on increasing the Blue Jays revenue — ticket prices went up this year — and his job is in no danger whatsoever. Indeed, he’s now a hot property for the Mets. https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2018/09/11/of-course-the-mets-are-interested-in-mark-shapiro/ Oh. Truth is, at the end of the day, it's likely not going to matter. Whether it's Shapiro, or someone like Shapiro. Whoever it is, payroll will likely not go up enough to make a difference, and the Wilpons, Jeff and/or Fred, will meddle enough to fuck it all up anyway.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: It's always been very clear to me that Fred is the biggest moron in the organization and it's almost always his interference and incompetence that fucks up the club. Regular Johnny Lunchbuckets out there have trouble distinguishing those characteristics (Fred's entire career is about having "relationships" mainly with Bernie Madoff and valuing "feel" and appearance over substance and results) from the completely different set bad characteristics possessed by Jeff (snotty, insensitive, autocratic, undeserving, and probably, conflicted by having to appease his crazy old man). Imagine if all of Jeff's shortcomings are fueled by insecurities fostered by his old man? How crazy would it be if Fred died, and suddenly Jeff became a thoughtful, analytical, sensitive owner.

Civil War! https://nypost.com/2018/09/10/the-internal-war-brewing-over-mets-gm-search/ A civil war of sorts of could be unfolding at the Mets’ highest level, with team owner Fred Wilpon and COO Jeff Wilpon disagreeing on a path to follow in hiring Sandy Alderson’s replacement to lead the front office. As The Post reported last month, the elder Wilpon favors an experienced baseball person with roots in scouting and player development over the industry trend of hiring younger executives with a slant toward analytics. The younger Wilpon would prefer a more analytics-savvy general manager, according to sources. Um. I agree with Jeff Wilpon?

41Forever wrote: I'm not sure why you think [they] would want Austin Jackson for next year. Isn't Lagares signed for 2019 with an option for 2020? I don't think Jackson is bad to have around as a reserve. But my impression was that he's here to play out the string after the injuries and it was apparent the Mate den Dekker wasn't an option. Why do I think that the Mets want Austin Jackson for next year? Because he's playing this year. And the only logical reason to play him this year is to prepare for next season. There should be no need to find someone to "play out the string". The term "play out the string" suggests that these meaningless games are also useless. And that is far, far from the truth. I've said it many times this season. Even in a lost year, major league AB's are a valuable, finite asset. A team that has a plan makes good use of these AB's, even during a lost year. A short-sighted, foolish club, brings in warm bodies to "play out the string". Major league at-bats can be used for: 1. Evaluation: Give a young player significant window of time so that the club may evaluate his skills on a major league level. Simultaneously, that young player benefits from... 2. Development: A young player gets his feet wet, makes his rookie mistakes, gets used to the speed of big league pitching/hitting. Gives him groundwork so he knows what to work on moving forward. 3. Establish Trade Value: An injured player, a former prospect, a veteran player, can all use AB's in a lost season to regain trade value. Particularly before the deadlines. 4. Rehabilitation: A player coming off a long-term injury can use big league AB's to get back to game speed. There are a few other uses I'm sure. All of these have an eye toward the future. They help the long-term goal which is to get back to winning. Well prepared clubs use their AB's accordingly. The Mets have given Austin Jackson 145 AB's in the second half. They have given Dominic Smith 15. If you knew nothing else about the players, which guy do you think the Mets are thinking has a future here? The only way to explain the number of AB's given to Jackson is that the Mets think he has a future here. If the Mets do not think so, then the Mets are acting foolishly. Now sure, they play different positions. But Smith is able to play a corner OF position. This would require moving Conforto or Nimmo to CF. Guess what? In all likelihood, Nimmo and/or Conforto should see significant time in CF next year. And so the logical move would be to give them time at these positions (see use #2 above). The only way you wouldn't need that is you have another centerfielder. Lagares? Possibly. But the guy has a .667 career OPS and can't stay healthy. Or, the Mets plan on adding another centerfielder. Most likely a guy who's cheap. A guy like...Austin Jackson. Now, you may be right. The Mets may have no plans to bring back Austin Jackson. They might have signed him to "play out the string". They did exactly that with Norichika Aoki last year. But the case could be made that the Mets had no one even worth trying out last September. That certainly isn't the case this year. Dominic Smith was once a top flight prospect. To waste these AB's, give them to Austin Jackson, while leaving Smith unproven, untradeable, and undeveloped is the epitome of foolish.