Centerfield

He touches on his Civil War interest in his Sports Illustrated interview. He's probably not what I'd call an expert, but he's certainly dived deeper than I have. Then he gets all gender-y. OE: Then there's this. SI: What did you think of the city before you lived here? KH: We stayed at the old New York Sheraton, right off the park. It was always a rest town for me. I just went to the hotel bar. I went out in New York City twice when I was a Cardinal. I mean, the hotel bar was fine. They had a lot of airlines, European airlines that were staying there, so there was no need to go wandering around. Subtext: There were plenty of stewardesses to hit on right downstairs. And that's the whole point of being a ballplayer. So why leave the hotel? Does that even qualify as subtext? I think that's just, like, text.

I was trying to justify this in my mind. Like it's just a NYE party, and maybe it's close to his house, etc. Then I saw smiling Mnuchin entering the party and gave up.

The main picture and headline have winner written all over them. I don't like the subheadline, as it tries to do too much, and the weird font for the 3. The weird Harvey subpic is just terrible. But for 2017, this cover is a fucking gem.

I think DePo’s role has been taken by Minaya. I don’t mind throwing him into the mix. Another Harvard guy is never a bad thing to have around. But I’m not sure how good he actually is. Not sure exactly what he had a hand in during his Oakland days, but his time in LA was unremarkable. And his player development was nothing special here either. His track record with the Browns doesn’t help matters. Makes you wonder if he isn’t a bit overrated.

I think the only scenario that had a lasting change for the worse was the Wilpons’ personal finances. The recession has been over for years. All of baseball has been enjoying huge revenues and the NY teams are in the front of that pack. The Mets are doing great. The Wilpons are the problem.

And I would have done this deal. Davis is tremendous and a difference maker in the pen. I’m guessing they’ll have to shell out even more than this if they want to keep Familia next year.

They signed Brian Shaw as well. You never know how a pitcher will react to Colorado, but that sounds like it could be a very good pen.

You know what else sucks about the lack of faith in spending? It kills message board discussion. All of our “Let’s talk about X” threads have slipped to the second page. We have no idea who is even worth discussing. Sandy might have $10 million or $50 million to spend. Maybe we need John Ricco to do another interview and tell us again they will be in on the big name free agents.

Nymr83 wrote: Well, you do have a roster limit of 25 (40 if he still had options and could be sent down), that is a cost for a guy who hadn't shown a ton and was 28 already The 2014 Mets opening day roster featured Omar Quintanilla, Andrew Brown, Eric Young and Josh Satin. Not exactly a "what do we do with all this talent" type of team.

I don't know if the constant Yankee comparisons are valid. They're a global brand with a revenue stream that 29 other teams would kill to have. It's well known that they can hide their bad contracts better than any other team can. That's nothing new. Who had the line years ago that rooting for the Yankees was like rooting for U.S. Steel? We're in the biggest market in the nation, but we share it with the sport's 800-pound gorilla. And I've not been to the new stadium -- so correct me if I'm wrong -- but I've heard the prices there are just insane, and it's a stadium built for those rich, white male Republicans that Ceetar hates. I will say this. To anyone saying that the Mets should spend like a big market team, there is no dumber counter argument than "It's not like they're the Yankees". It's infuriating. Not once, ever have I said the Mets should spend like the Yankees. We know that they are not the Yankees. Can we put that issue to bed and not raise it again? It's so fucking aggravating. One of these days, this will be the reason I end up in jail. Read the posts again. To summarize. Me: The Mets should publicly announce an intent to spend. They need to change this public image. It's not attractive to free agents. Edgy: The best way to do this is to actually spend. Announcing an intent to spend is counterproductive. Me: Sure, actually spending is the best way. This is what the Yankees and Dodgers do. But because the Mets are not the Yankees and Dodgers, they should announce their intent. Like the Cubs and Nationals. You: You know, it's not fair to compare the Mets and Yankees. Me: Fighting the urge to murder.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I have no doubt that the Mets were a significantly more attractive destination to free agents after the 2015 and 2016 seasons than they are now. Agreed. And that's why I think it's important to change the atmosphere around the Mets. Hey, we know we had a tough season, but we have a lot of talent that is coming back healthy in 2018. We did some house-cleaning and we are prepared to field a championship level team. We are looking for the right guys to join us on this ride, because our goal is to win the World Series. Sandy, did you read the report that you intend to slash payroll by $20 million? Joel Sherman... Any reporter claiming to know what our budget will be is wrong. I'm not even sure what it will be. I can tell you that we are committed to winning above anything else, and that we have the means to fill our needs. If you look at our history, payroll has steadily increased. I don't know where it will end up, but I see no reason why it couldn't increase further, if we found the right players. Just like that, the perception improves.

Edgy MD wrote: You assure him personally. Or better yet, you just do it. Sign deGrom (and maybe Syndergaard) to an extension and tell him if he signs right now he can share the podium at the press conference, shaking hands with a favorite son. I think announcing an intent to spend money is a losing play. For one, it gives agents the upper hand. "I got the same offer from Seattle, Sandy, and I KNOW you've got more money because your owner has been talking out of school." For two, money talks and bullshit walks. Sure. Spending money is the best move. The Yankees and Dodgers never have to announce their intent to spend. Spending is assumed. This is part of what makes them so attractive to free agents. They know that they will never have to be "the man". Look at the Ellsbury contract. It's a complete albatross on the Mets. "Jason Bay 2.0" On the Yankees, it's barely a footnote. But other teams without this history seem to make their intent public. When the Cubs went on their spending spree, they broadcast it all around. Made it clear that they intended to build a winner for years to come. And now the Nats are doing the same. Sending out signals that they intent to exceed the luxury cap for a second straight year. Think about it from the player's standpoint. Team A has just won the division. They have a top tier payroll and have announced that they intend to exceed the luxury tax again. Their ace was signed to a big free agent contract, and their young stud pitcher was just signed long term. Their big hitter is up for free agency next year but they have publicly stated that they will make every effort to retain him. Team B has just lost 90 games. They have a mid-tier payroll and indications are that they intend to scale back. The team has not refuted these reports. They have an arsenal of young pitching, but have signed no one long term. There are two good hitters in their lineup and one of them is hurt. If the money is the same, which team do you pick?

Ooh! I think that's it! Forgot about Darren.

Ceetar wrote: I mean, I'd have kept Turner but it wasn't like it was obvious. The Mets also didn't know (I assume) that the ball was juiced and was going to be further/remain juiced. Absolutely obvious. Cutting Turner was an unforced error. There was no decision to make, they didn't have to make a big financial commitment. There was absolutely no reason to let him go. Every player in your organization is an asset, with the potential to be productive. Cutting one, especially one as versatile as Turner was, for no reason is dumb. And when you make dumb moves, they sometimes come back to bite you in the ass. I wonder if this mistake is made if Minaya is in the organization at the time. Obviously Omar saw something in Turner that warranted him picking him up. You wonder if he would have been ok with just letting him walk.

You wonder if Fred gets mad when he hears a report that the Nationals intent to exceed the luxury tax. The Nats' spending has much more of an effect on the Mets' fate than anything that happens across town. If he blows up at the Yankees, but doesn't notice the Nats, then he's all sorts of fucked up. And I'm not saying that's what he feels, but that it would show a lot about his priorities. On a different note, I think if the Mets do intend to spend this winter, it's important to come out and refute all of these stories. One of the things that makes a team attractive to a free agent is that they will spend money to surround that free agent with other talent to win. I would guess that is a large part of why Eric Hosmer would rather not return to KC, he doesn't want to be the only one left after everyone leaves. I think right now it would be a tough sell to any free agent signing with the Mets. How could you convince him sign on during the era when the starting pitching will start to walk away?

Matt Lawton.

On the other hand, one of his best moves was signing Marlon Byrd, who he turned into Dilson Herrera, and eventually Jay Bruce. That is something out of nothing.

Nymr83 wrote: The Francisco and De Aza deals shouldn't be looked at as big negatives. The money on those deals should be trivial to Wilpon, if they didn't work out it doesn't matter. DFA Turner should be #1 because it is pure talent evaluation. Not signing Murphy, who was a free agent, is more than that and he may just not have had monetary approval. The worst move he made was signing Michael Cuddyer. That move was wrong on so many levels. 1. Cuddyer was done. Not worth even the modest contract they gave him. 2. They relied on that signing as their big offensive improvement for that off-season. 3. Gave up a first round draft pick for him.

If you think the sign was embarrassing and foolish I'm not going to argue with you on that. Certainly I think there are better uses of one's money. But the evidence is overwhelming that the idea was correct. The 2015 team, as constructed at the outset was not good enough. Whatever may have happened in spring training or during one subset of games in April, after 102 games, they were two games over .500, with a 28th ranked offense, and four games behind Washington. Once the addition was made, the offense improved (jumped to #3), they went on a tear, and suddenly became a legitimate threat to win it all. Very few times do you see the data line up so perfectly. If you disagree with these results, the burden is on you to prove otherwise. If you are going to call them ignorant, then you have to prove you were right and they were wrong. I don't think that can be done. To your other points: 1. Improvement at the Deadline: I get what you are saying. Good teams improve themselves during the year, so it was premature for everyone to freak out. I disagree. If the team had a pattern of going the extra mile, getting reinforcements in July, perhaps then, one could make the argument that fans should have some faith. But given their history, I see nothing that would have given any of us reason to believe that Cespedes was coming. 2. Luck: Sure. Every team needs a few breaks to go their way. But a 90 win team needs more luck than a 97 win team.

I think I'm getting lost in the back and forth on this argument. My points are fairly straightforward. 1. 2015 was a tale of two teams. First half team, then second half team. 2. The first half team was not good enough. 52-50, 28th ranked offense. 3. After they went out and got the slugger we wanted, the second half team was awesome. 38-22, 3rd ranked offense. 4. A 90 game winner is lucky to win a division. 90 wins would have won zero divisions in 2017.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Spring training games? Are you really citing to that as evidence of greatness? And sure, the 11 game winning streak was nice, but I don't need to tell you about the dangers of small sample size. The far better indicator of that team's ability was the 52-50 record and their 28th ranked offense in the first half. I am citing spring training as the point at which idiots were asking for their mom's credit cards so as to donate to an embarrassing monument to self-pity. And yes I felt that Spring Training/April was meaningful that year in that it demonstrated what the club was capable of. No doubt they surely tested the limits but any 11-game win streak ought to be a sign that a team is good enough to contend. Every team adjusts. You keep going back to this "if the Nationals won 95 games..." I can think of 11 reasons they didn't. The Mets were 4-6 against Washington before the deadline. 7-2 against them afterwards. The two losses came on the last weekend of the season after the division was clinched. Cespedes against Washington: 1.046 OPS. We were very lucky that: (1) Washington was in striking distance when we went on our run; (2) the guy we got destroyed them during head-to-head games; (3) that Washington went 23-30 overall during July and August that year.

41Forever wrote: The Wilpons have their issues -- some pretty big ones -- but they are far from the worst owners in baseball and not worthy of a revolt. I'm willing to listen on this one. I don't really know a lot about other owners. Who is worse?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 2015 was the tale of two seasons. One where they didn't do enough, and one where they did. In 2015 the Mets had the 4th ranked pitching staff in baseball. They were awesome. Post-season caliber, and they were young and under team control. If the team had secured better offense, they would have been a playoff contender. They failed that winter to do so, adding only Michael Cuddyer. Many of us said it wasn't enough before it happened. We were right. Spring training games? Are you really citing to that as evidence of greatness? And sure, the 11 game winning streak was nice, but I don't need to tell you about the dangers of small sample size. The far better indicator of that team's ability was the 52-50 record and their 28th ranked offense in the first half. Then they went out and added the slugger we had been clamoring for. And sure, there were a lot of other factors that worked out as well, but without Yoenis Cespedes that team doesn't come close to being what they were. Post all-star, they had the #3 ranked offense, to go along with all that pitching. And they went to the World Series. The reason I mention the 90 games is that we were incredibly lucky that year. If the Nats had their typical 95 win season, we still lose that division and are left with a 1 game play in. It's dangerous to tread water for 102 games, then hope to catch fire for the last 60. A good team puts itself in a position to start winning from Opening Day. And again, if a 90 win season is the pinnacle of our greatness, I would say we are not aiming high enough.

Meanwhile, our rivals continue to spend. Nationals 2018 payroll expected to be around $210 million. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationals-journal/wp/2017/12/22/the-nationals-paid-competitive-balance-tax-in-2017-and-are-now-positioned-to-do-so-next-year-too/?utm_term=.daa4bcca20fb Per Forbes, the Washington Nationals have revenue that is lower than the Mets.

Might be because we have multiple needs.