Centerfield

John Mayberry

LaTroy Hawkins.

I think a lot of the disconnect here is that some of us, namely me, have trouble quantifying the value of better defense, if that is true, from Hamilton. Because Lagares seems like a pretty terrific fielder to me. But for the sake of argument, here are the hurdles to overcome if you are to justify a trade for Hamilton. 1. You must establish that Hamilton is better than Lagares Hamilton is the better basestealer, Lagares is the better hitter, even while playing in a much tougher park. Hamilton is a much better basestealer. The difference in hitting is not as drastic, but hitting is more important than stealing bases. Fielding aside, who is the better player? I'm not sure the answer. It's being suggested here that Hamilton is the better fielder. If so, that would tip the balance in favor of Hamilton. But Lagares is pretty good himself. Is this accepted as fact that Hamilton is better? I admit I have no idea about these defensive metrics. But if you want to justify this trade, you have to be able to demonstrate that Hamilton is the better player overall. 2. The difference between Hamilton and Lagares has to be significant enough that it's worth trading Bruce Sure, there is some argument over the value of Bruce here, and I was vocal about not wanting him. But the dude did hit 30 HR's, and was worth a few pretty good prospects just a few months ago. I'm not sure that one can clearly demonstrate that Hamilton is better than Lagares, but that the margin is wide enough to drive a Bruce through it? I don't see it. 3. Then what the fuck do you do with Lagares? Even if you get there on the first two, then the end result is two centerfielders that are more or less interchangeable. If the idea is that we have to trade an outfielder because we have a glut of outfielders, trading for another outfielder kinda undermines that objective no? I guess you could say that if we trade for Hamilton, we don't need Granderson, but then you are talking about trading 60 HR's away to make room for Hamilton.

Wait, as in the Billy Hamilton that hits worse than Juan Lagares?

You don't trade Cabrera to hope Gavin turns into something. Obviously he is valuable to us, and so might be valuable to others. If you can get a good piece you have to consider it. None of the other options are as strong as Cabrera, but it's at a position where we have the greatest chances of someone clicking. Just food for thought.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'd like to think (although I have no evidence for this) that they want to get back to $140 million as a baseline but then be willing to add salary during the season for whatever kind of upgrade they may need. I thought the idea was to get down to about $140 million, so they could then turn around and sign a few relievers and Kelly Johnson to get back to the $150's. But that they are unwilling or unable to go above their current payroll, so they are precluded from doing anything until they unload Bruce.

I have no idea what his trade value might be, but you would have to think a SS that hits 20+ home runs would have some value no? Reasons to consider it: 1. Likely to regress in 2017 2. Gets injured a lot 3. If he regresses, some other internal options might work. Reyes, Flores, and to a lesser extent, Cecchini and Reynolds. Plus in the second half Rosario might be ready. If he has no trade value, you keep him. But if someone is willing to spare a catcher or a centerfielder...

Adam Rubin weighed in this morning saying McCutcheon is unlikely. No surprise there. But the interesting part was that he was saying that a barrier to the trade is that the Mets can't squeeze him into the payroll, forget even putting together a package that the Pirates would take. according to Foxsports.com, the likelihood is slim that the Mets would shed the payroll in order to make that deal viable. And that does not even address whether the Mets would be willing to part with the requisite package to land McCutchen. Link: http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0602879470851855042-4 This is more or less in line with what we have been hearing. That the Mets are handcuffed until they can shed some salary. I know we have not discussed this much since we were able to retain Cespedes and because payroll has risen over the past few years. But Alderson and the Mets seem to be sending the message that this is as high as they can go (at least for now). So the question is, why is this the case? Last year, the Mets checked in around $156 million, good for 12th in baseball. See the link below. http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2016/ I'm not sure what "Retained" means in that chart, but most reports say they were in this range. Projections have them coming in around this range in 2017 as well. So, the question is, why aren't they higher? They are a NY team, coming off 2 straight post-seasons, attendance is high, they have a new stadium, and their own TV network. Yet there remains a significant gap between the Mets and the top five. The luxury tax sits at $195 million. Teams like the Mets should be bumping up against that margin, but as of now, they are $40 million away....and looking to shed payroll. What gives? And before you answer, let's address a few points: 1. The Talk of Shedding Payroll is not Speculation, it comes from Alderson himself Sure, Rubin's report might be speculation, but this line of reasoning came from Sandy directly. From December 7: Alderson said he would be reluctant to add payroll before moving some of the Mets' financial commitments. "I don't think I'd want to do that," Alderson said. "It's like buying a new house without selling your old one. Sometimes you get stuck in the transition. It's not a good place to be." http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2016/12/sandy_alderson_expects_mets_payroll_to_drop.html People have said Alderson never says what he means, but keep in mind, there is no strategic reason to make this statement. In fact, it works against you. Alderson is basically admitting he needs to move Bruce or Granderson, and that hurts his leverage in attempting to accomplish just that. What could possibly be his motivation for saying this? The only thing I can think of is to dampen fan expectation, dampen the writers' speculation, and to do it when the goodwill of the Cespedes signing is fresh in everyone's mind. 2. No one is looking to "Spend just to spend" Because anytime anyone advocates opening up payroll, they are met with "no need to spend just to spend" arguments, let's be clear that is not what I am proposing here. Sure, you can argue that 5 years and $83 million for Fowler seems like a lot. But there are good, reasonable deals to be made with an extra $40 million. Hell, you can even make some bad deals if you have $40 million. Take for instance, Wilson Ramos who signed for 2 years, 12.5 million. Even with incentives, that only takes him up to $18 million. $6 million a year is what LOOGY's are going for these days. Wouldn't Ramos have been a big upgrade? Even if he's not available until June, you make that deal. He didn't even have draft pick compensation tied to him. And right now, we sorely need a lefty in the pen. Hell, we could afford Joey Votto and still have $15 million left to blow on strippers and coke. I mean, it's nice to be out of the bottom third, and I'm not angry like I was then, but I think this is still a question worth asking.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm a little wary of of McCutchen—coming off a bad year, several years since he was a defensive plus, and still bearing a superstar's price tag. I assume you mean in terms of trade haul? His salary is pretty reasonable.

seawolf17 wrote: Centerfield wrote: It would be strange to have a rotation without any lefties. "You rang?" LOLOLOL. Not funny.

Frayed Knot wrote: Both the NYPost and the Snooze pick up this morning on Ken Rosenthal's recent tidbit that the Mets have had "ever-so preliminary" talks recently concerning Andrew McCutcheon. Neither gets into the guesstimation game on what it would take to swing a deal as both articles are more about going through the logistics of what it would take just to pre-set the stage for a possible swap. Mainly, they'd first have to deal both Bruce & Granderson as adding an OFer when you've already got an OF glut only compounds things, and that they'd likely have to add at least one reliever (above and beyond whatever they might want to add anyway) in order to make up for the likely pitching drain of whoever heads to Steel Town. As always, both add that only Amed Rosario is off the table if and when discussion ever do turn serious. I would think the Pirates would be asking for something like Matz and Conforto. Which, I guess, would help alleviate the OF situation, but do nothing to clear salary. As the articles suggest, I think the probability of this is pretty low. It would be strange to have a rotation without any lefties.

Frayed Knot wrote: Still going to want some kind of lefty out there at some point. Yeah. I have no idea who though. Maybe the Pirates will give us Bastardo back.

Can't help but wonder if trade rumors hurt Curtis's chances. There might be a grievance filed in Stockholm by his agents.

TJ MAXX was the bigger game. But I like the Hair cover. Despite underwear girl.

I had heard that the story line was a bit muddled and that the battle scenes lack an obvious purpose/goal. There was a lot of planet hopping in the early parts, and if you start thinking too much about the plot some holes start to open up. But, overall, a great movie, at least for me. It has a crew of heroes that you rally around, a fearsome and intimidating enemy, and stands alone on it's own as a compelling story. And like Vic says, it portrayed war. People die, even good guys, and in the end, there is pain even amidst victory. I think it's grittier than the original trilogy, and even more so than the Force Awakens. The prequel trilogy is a joke. A cartoon. And not even worth comparing to this.

Edgy MD wrote: You're the law-talking guy, but if the prosecution is quoted as making statements that work against their own case, and the case has been expunged from the official record, I'd think of that as a best-case scenario, from the perspective of whoever is going to represent him on behalf of the union. That said, they may still end up accepting a suspension of some sort—perhaps 10 days or 10 games—because appearances are important and if nothing else, he appears to have gotten psycho-drunk enough to endanger his family, and that's not nothing. That's what I'm thinking. This is different than "the victim won't cooperate", or "we didn't have enough evidence to proceed". If the Newsday tweets are correct, they actually reached a conclusion that no domestic violence took place. If that is the case, then there should be no suspension. Somewhere on twitter it said Familia barricaded himself into his bathroom. If you are feeling out of control, that's you know, kinda the responsible thing to do. Sure, getting drunk and getting out of control is not without fault, but if you are going to end up suspending quite a few guys if that is your criteria.

There are different burdens of proof for civil and criminal liability.

I think this distinction will be important. There is a big difference between the prosecution being unable to prove their case and the prosecution concluding that no DV occurred.

Charges dropped. According to Newsday's Jim Baumbach... [tweet]https://twitter.com/jimbaumbach/status/809413896360497153[/tweet] [tweet]https://twitter.com/jimbaumbach/status/809413174600417280[/tweet] [tweet]https://twitter.com/jimbaumbach/status/809412992827850752[/tweet] Obviously, MLB may see things another way, but this certainly doesn't strengthen baseball's case against him. Wait, so does that mean they concluded there was no domestic violence?

Bummed about this one. I really think that the Piazza HOF cover should be better than the News one. Especially the subheadline about the hat. C'mon!

And I love the non-chalant look on his face. Like he's already wondering whether to take the GCP or LIE to get home.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I did too. "CES BOOM BAH" is a dumb headline, but it's a great photo. And the Post cover kind of implies that Noah Syndergaard's nickname is "Behold". Yup. That blast was one of the great moments of the season.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: the last Met player who was older than me was Julio Franco. So far. Not if we re-sign Jesse. We need a lefty. Post-season experience. It makes all the sense in the world.

Just realized that with the loss of Bartolo, I will be older than every Met in 2017. I think a few guys around here are my age. Bart just torpedoed a whole bunch of us. Granderson will be the elder statesman in 2017. Pretty young, for an oldest Met, at 37. For the last three years, Bart has carried the torch for us old guys, pushing this date further out than we should have reasonably expected. Prior to Bart, it was Latroy Hawkins, in 2013 at age 40. Others below: 2012: Tim Byrdak, 39 2011: Miguel Batista, 40 2010: Henry Blanco, 39 2009: Gary Sheffield, 41 2008: Moises Alou, 42 2007: Moises Alou, 41 In 2007, we had FOUR guys who were 41. Alou, Jeff Conine, Tom Glavine, and Sandy Alomar Jr. (I'd have to look up the birthdays to see who was actually the oldest but too lazy to do it). RA Dickey, to my surprise, was never the oldest Met.

It's not that hard, Team I Don't Know Where The Line Is Anymore. Dressing rookies up like ladies, "Mexicans," or sex slaves: not okay. Dressing rookies up in Underoos, or compelling rookies to wear terrible facial hair: good fun for everyone. And sexually assaulting our minor leaguers falls on which side of that line? It's just that there are so many rules now and it's hard to keep track of up from down.