Centerfield

Lefty Specialist wrote: He's coming off back surgery. I'd be afraid he'd take the offer, given that teams might be leery of signing him. They have in-house options. The 'free draft pick' has to be weighed against 'what if he accepts?' That I didn't know. I also just looked him up and realized he's 35 years old. Somehow Mike Napoli has played his whole career without me noticing him until like 3 years ago.

Napoli is a little surprising. 34 HR's, 800 OPS. You'd think he'd get a multiple year deal someplace. Maybe the Tribe can't take the risk that he would accept.

Vic Sage wrote: I think it IS good baseball sense to bring him back. He's either a reliable back of the rotation starter (on a roster stuffed with health issues), or at worst, a spot-starter/long-man/middle-inning guy i'd trust more than Robles, Goeddel, Henderson, Verrett, Gilmartin or any other suspects they currently have. The only decision to be made is about $$. But that's not a baseball decision, that's a decision about expenses. The real baseball decision is for Bartolo, who wants to be in a starting rotation so he can get those wins. If he is offered the exact same money from the Mets and some other team, it would be HIS option to choose heart over head, to choose staying with guys and a team in a city where he's a folk hero, or to leave as a mercenary to fill out his resume. Yeah, that's true. It makes good baseball sense to bring him back. The question is whether it makes financial sense, given the other needs and the limited resources (we assume). Another baseball reason is that it's been widely reported that other pitchers learn from Bartolo. So that's something.

Edgy, It is very frustrating. You make statements like this: Edgy MD wrote: Centerfield wrote: Like I said, I don't really see why you think the distinction is important. Because you made a statement, and I thought the facts didn't support it. The facts not supporting my statement doesn't make it important. It just makes it wrong. You are basically saying "You were wrong. I felt like it was important to point out that you were wrong, because you are wrong." Regardless of whether it changes the overall point, or whether it makes any difference as to the conclusion, you just want to point out when people are wrong. That is annoying.

Is there any way to acceptably disagree with you without you teasing it out like this and putting a chip on your shoulder? Because it's getting kind of crazy. Yes. Absolutely. If you agree that the multi-year offers will come in but feel the need to make the correction: Well, I don't think he put up MVP numbers in any sense, but your larger point is taken. Completely fine! Agreed! He's not really a 2016 MVP candidate. Not irritating at all. If you disagree, and you think the lack of MVP numbers is relevant: I don't think he put up MVP numbers at all and so the offers won't be there. I think this distinction is important because....analysis...facts...backup. Also fantastic. We can have an intelligent discussion. But this: It's important to remember he didn't really put up MVP-type numbers, and he wasn't particularly close. He was 53rd in fWar, for instance. Guys ahead of him included Odubel Herrera and Charlie Blackmon, Cesar Hernandez and D.J. LeMahieu. This leaves me guessing why. Why is it important? Why are you citing to fWar? Are you saying these guys are better than Ces? Posts like this make me have to guess at your point. Which inevitably leads to: Please don't try and play me into a position I haven't taken. I would love not to. Say what you mean. Tell me why you think it's important. Tell me what difference you think it will make. I will repeat what I said to you earlier in this thread. Then make your argument Edgy. Don't just pick at mine. If you think the distinction is significant, if you think it will make an affect on the likelihood of a long-term offer, explain it...please. I'm all ears.

d'Kong76 wrote: Sorry, but most days it's hard to judge where the crossing-line is on the delicate-sensibilities scale here. There's some crazy shit posted here some- times that goes completely over-the-top and goes unchecked but I make a pee-pee joke and I'm a dick (pun intended). Oh well, all in a day's posting. Sorry, not meant to be a criticism on anything posted here. It's somewhat private and we are just individuals. I think a news agency, however, lower the standard may be for tabloids, still has to have some respect for individuals, even public figures.

Then I think you and I disagree on the word "important". If it doesn't change the conclusion, specifically, that multi-year offers will be made, then it isn't "important". Allow me to illustrate. I think Jimmy is a bad guy. He is a bad guy because (1) he is engaged in a crime ring. (2) He is racist and homophobic. (3) I saw him punch his wife in the face and chest last Tuesday. I think it is important to remember that Jimmy did not punch his wife in the chest, only in the face. Ok. You're right. Jimmy only punched her face, which I guess, is slightly better. The fact of the matter is Jimmy is still a pretty bad fucking guy. In our situation, "MVP-like" versus "All-Star-level" is similarly irrelevant. You're right. He was all-star level. Not MVP level. He's still likely getting a shit-ton of offers. The distinction you make, which has no effect on the main conclusion, is "niggling" perhaps. Maybe "irritating" or "annoying". It is certainly not "important". It is only "important" if your objective is "Point out every mistake Centerfield makes, no matter how insignificant, or irrelevant to his main idea."

Like I said, I don't really see why you think the distinction is important. The topic was the likelihood of a club offering a multi-year deal to Cespedes. If you think the distinction between "MVP-like" numbers and "All-Star level" numbers would prevent a club from making an offer then I'd love to hear why. The point was that a year later, his second half 2015 looks less like an aberration, and more like an awakening. Honestly, I don't see a club saying "He followed up his MVP second half 2015 with only All-Star level production this year? Sure, I know he's the best all-around player on the market, and the youngest, but if he's not even in the MVP discussion, fuck that guy. Go get me Trumbo!"

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I visited my parents in March and flew through LaGuardia and snagged some of those Harvey. Knowing now that there was a cancer scare makes them seem in bad taste now. But then, tabloid headlines and bad taste go together. Completely agreed on bad taste. I only voted for two (Knightmare and Knight's All Right). I think those headlines spoofing a man's medical condition is over the line. Rake the guy for anything he does on the field. When you mock a medical condition you're just being a dick.

Bart really makes you decide between the head and heart. As a baseball decision, it really doesn't make much sense. You have seven young, controllable pitchers that are expected to be healthy next spring. Even if two falter, you have a complete rotation. And the offense is in so much need of upgrading, and the bullpen could use a few arms, it almost seems silly to waste any money on the rotation. But hell, I just can't imagine the thought of not having him around. He's just so much fun.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Infielders Walker - PIT I have no clue where anyone will end up, but I get this feeling too. I also think Jon Niese will not end up in Pittsburgh.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: The list below Ces has the distinct waft of Bay leaves. Right? Especially Bautista. Like Bay, we could have the distinction of having him both before and after he was good.

Nymr83 wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Analytics trumps common sense. I think you are conflating 'common sense' with 'poor emotion-based decision making' Cespedes is certainly a good player, but the Mets shouldn't pay him based on what he's done for them already. "Analytics" is very good thing - The Mets can look at players like him and project his numbers over the next X years (where X is the potential offer) and decide what those years are likely to be worth. The other available options, the state of the roster, etc certainly come into play but you need to establish what you believe to be a baseline of value first. the fact that the Mets are in "win now" mode may also come into play - they may be willing to to eat some lower value years at the end of a multi-year deal in order to get the guy they feel they need now. but that decision needs to be made with the knowledge that that is what they are doing - not with the blind faith that every other player (who wasn't on steroids circa 1995-2005) has declined as they got older but this one won't. I think that is exactly what the Mets are going to have to measure. Those crap years at the end of the contract. Whether they would be better off with Cespedes at 35 or Encarnacion at 37. Or whether whatever they'd have to give up in what I would guess would be a competitive trade market (given the crappy FA market) would be worth it. The Mets have their work cut out for them. Kinda the wrong year to be looking to upgrade a 26th ranked offense.

Welcome Backman! Other than Cespedes, it's a rough list. All of the options listed are older, more inconsistent and worse in the field. If the Mets don't think Cespedes is worth the commitment, then I can't see how they could justify commitments to anyone else. This is what makes it so tough for the Mets. They need a middle of the lineup threat, but the options outside of Yo look so unattractive. I haven't heard anything about the trade market, so maybe something could develop there, but you'd think the competition would be stiff, as I imagine most clubs kinda feel the same way about these shitty options in the FA market. Making things worse is that there aren't even good starting pitchers on the market for teams to blow their budget on.

Did we include spring training covers last year? Man. Some of these are painful. I guess in February, you take what you can get.

It's important to remember he didn't really put up MVP-type numbers, and he wasn't particularly close. He was 53rd in fWar, for instance. Guys ahead of him included Odubel Herrera and Charlie Blackmon, Cesar Hernandez and D.J. LeMahieu. Somehow missed this the first time around. I don't know that it's important to remember that at all, in the context of the point I was making. In fact, I would go as far as to say it's unimportant. But if you must: I think it would be nice to get him on the same type of structure this year. But there are a number of factors working against him: 1. Much weaker free agent class. 2. Now instead of just a half a season of MVP type numbers, he has [crossout]a season and a half[/crossout] followed it up with a full season of really fucking good, albeit not quite MVP numbers. 3. I bet a part of him feels like he's "earned" a commitment from the Mets. If the Mets don't offer it, I can see him taking it as a slight and leaving. Better? And like I said. My point remains the same. I don't know what fWAR is, having just learned the new stats like WAR the past few years. I do know that WAR is a cumulative stat where one is negatively impacted for missing time and for playing out of position defensively. I'm guessing fWAR doesn't adjust for the park seeing as you cite to two Phillies and two Rockies. I will also say that if fWAR is suggesting that Odubel Herrera is better than Yoenis Cespedes, then it is extremely limited in usefulness. Ashie62 wrote: Analytics trumps common sense. Yup.

Southern Comfort for me. The Jeter comment DQ's Yo and Behold. All the car and Harvey stuff. Meh.

I guess it doesn't make sense to throw away $49 million until you have to. Just in case he tears his ACL watching TV today or something. But still. A girl can dream.

Unless I missed it he hasn't opted out yet. Maybe Sandy has been covertly working with him on an extension?

Here is the Cliff Notes version. FK: Ha! Look at those things CF said last year. OMG he was so wrong. CF: Are you serious? I wasn't wrong, I was right. Here's the proof....links....quotes...facts...evidence.... FK: Dude, like what are you like even talking about? I don't get your point.

Ashie62 wrote: Is this worth arguing about? Geezuz No. It doesn't. But I am incapable of just letting it go when people say I was proven wrong when: 1. It's a year later 2. It's unprovoked, in a nice little thread about tabloid covers 3. I was right!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: And note the Post's craven use of the YESPEDES cover, trying to steal the magic from last year's winning Daily News entry. Don't think they haven't been to Stockholm.

This isn't about who was right or wrong nor about things said on this board specifically. Are you sure about that? Because to me, it sounds very much like a "Ha ha, I was right, you were wrong" type of post. And your post specifically quotes me. So if it wasn't meant to be about who was right or wrong, or my post specifically, it sure did seem like it. My point is that there is A TON of speculation every winter and MOST OF IT winds up wrong. Sure. Speculation, by it's nature, is speculative. But it just so happens that you cited to three examples of speculation where: 1. I was the one speculating 2. You were challenging the conclusions drawn from such speculation 3. You have now declared those conclusions wrong 4. When, in fact, those conclusions were correct. On all 3 counts. Even the insider media who are there are often speculating about what they think is going to happen (Mets don't seem to have a Plan B) and then fans speculate off that speculation and wind up treating whatever they saw/read last as if the gospel truth. None of the examples you cite were based upon insider media, or prognostications of what beat writers thought might happen. These were actual quotes from Ricco and Alderson. And I don't remember anyone treating those words like gospel. The discussion that ensued was my assessment of their mindset when making these statements. And in the end, my assessments of their mindset, were dead on. So when leading sub-headlines like 'Cespedes not Right for Mets' get dangled on back pages it tends to get combined with often pre-conceived notions (ie. more speculation) about what ownership can or will spend and many fans (I'd say MOST - including some here) just KNEW that Cespedes would never be a Met again, a fact which was true right up until it wasn't precisely because nobody knows how things will play out. The pre-conceived notion was that the Wilpons did not want to sign Cespedes to a long-term contract. The reality ended up being that the Wilpons did not want to sign Cespedes to a long-term contract. The Mets got lucky when Cespedes came back to them on a short-term deal. That is why the headlines in today's batch of covers includes variations on the word "stun". Again, those that speculated, were correct. When Sandy gave us the lame centerfield argument, we called him out on his bullshit. In the end, it was bullshit. They signed Cespedes and put him in center. It was never about the position. It was about money. But it wasn't universal, there were some that bought into the OF position line of thinking. Someone, who, incidentally, seemed pretty sure that Lagares wouldn't be relegated to a backup position, meaning no premiere OF was coming. OK, I'll try once more. The Mets currently have three OFs under multi-year deals plus Conforto, which means that if they go out to sign a premier FA OF it's not going to be in addition to what they already have but instead of one or more of them. If you want to argue for that strategy then fine, but a top FA isn't coming here to platoon and the team isn't moving Granderson (their best offensive player this past year) nor LAGARES (a 26 y/o GG CF) to a backup/PH role. If you want to keep those guys and merely reduce their roles then it's going to be for a lesser, more platoon-type of import, not the likes of Heyward or Upton or Adam Jones. Once Cespedes dropped his price, the Mets were like "Have a seat Juan!" So while I'm sure the brass was disappointed when Zobrist took Chicago's offer, the fact that the writer there sensed that there was no 'Plan B' doesn't mean there wasn't and when they wound up with a different switch-hitting 2B with a near identical career OPS (and five years younger) a mere 24 hours later it indicates that just maybe going home and drinking a bottle of bleach wasn't the only alternative to the dream girl turning down the prom invitation. I think you are mistaken on the facts. It was not that a writer "sensed" there was no plan B. Ricco held a press conference and showed his entire hand. Much to the surprise of all the reporters and us here on the Board. And it wasn't that Andy Martino speculated the reaction in the room. He was there, saw it, and reported it. This was not his opinions or musings. This was his first hand observation. It was also his first hand observation that the Walker deal did not materialize until the next morning when Neal Huntington dropped it into his lap. Mid-morning on Wednesday, Ricco is on a conference call on his cell, when Pirates general manager Neal Huntington calls. It goes to voicemail, then Ricciardi’s phone rings. It’s Huntington. “Would you consider Walker for Niese?” Huntington asks Ricciardi, referring to Jonathon Niese, a 29-year-old lefthanded pitcher. Niese is solid but unspectacular, and has put off teammates by complaining about their defensive play. The decision to part with him is not difficult, Mets officials later admit privately. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/news-lifts-curtain-backstage-drama-mlb-winter-meetings-article-1.2469431 Not convinced? A few minutes later, a team official who’d been away for a few hours returns to the suite and sees Walker’s name back on the whiteboard. “What’s that?” he says. “We’re getting him,” another official answers. Things that guys with a plan say: 1. Hey, did they really take Niese? LOLOLOL 2. It looks like Plan B is well underway! 3. Awesome! Did the Neil Walker deal that we totally had thought through come to fruition during my hours of absence? What the Mets said: "What's that?"

Zvon wrote: That's an excellent post CF. Thanks Z!

I just noticed that text at the bottom of TOP HAT: SANDY: CESPEDES NOT RIGHT FOR METS Just a reminder about all of the speculation last winter [Cespedes not right, not in the budget, Zobrist or dick!] and none of it was correct. It's funny how two sides of a debate can look back a year later and both feel that they were completely right. I disagree. I think that the speculation surrounding each of those thoughts was 100% correct. 1. Cespedes not a Good Fit Cespedes not being a good fit wasn't, in fact, speculation, but rather an idea conveyed by Sandy Alderson. The article the cover references is here: http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/sandy-alderson-explains-why-yoenis-cespedes-isn-t-a-good-fit-1.11303094 The idea conveyed by Alderson, was that it wasn't money that was preventing the Mets from pursuing Cespedes. It's that he would have to play centerfield, and although it made sense for a few months, it was not a good fit for five or six years. The speculation, conveyed here on this board, was that this was all bullshit. First off, there was no guarantee that Conforto was an everyday player (he was still not facing lefties). And at best, even if Cespedes had to play center, it would only be for a year or two until Granderson's contract expired, when either Ces, or Conforto, if he stuck, could move over to RF. The speculation was that Sandy was spewing garbage so as to not say we don't want to give him the big money deal. (I think one of my themes last winter was calling bullshit on Sandy Alderson.) And in the end, it was just that, bullshit. Ultimately, the Mets signed Cespedes, and stuck him right back in centerfield. Not because he magically got better in CF, or because a corner OF spot opened up, but because he came back to them and agreed to a short-term deal. Money, money, and money. Less Money = Good Fit The speculation was actually dead on accurate. 2. Cespedes Not In the Budget I don't know which specific statement you are referencing here, but the speculation I offered last winter was that there was absolutely, positively room for Cespedes in the budget. First off, a big market team should be able to afford Cespedes, even with everyone else they signed. Secondly, if the Mets were hamstrung by budget, they still could have afforded him by foregoing the De Aza/Cabrera/Blevins/Walker/Colon pu-pu platter. In fact, both statements were true. And thus, the speculation, was again correct. On Edit: Found the actual conversation: They certainly have room in their budget to get a big name outfielder if they wanted one. And how is it that we know this? Because they are at $90 million now. Without the Cabrera signing they would be at $81 million. Even if you added Heyward's $23 million, you're still only at $103 million. Which is what the payroll was to begin 2015. What do you know? Turned out, there was room! 3. Zobrist or Dick So if you recall, and you should since it's been bumped to the front page again, the name of the thread is Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter Meaning it was John Ricco saying it was Zobrist or dick, not that I thought the offseason would yield Zobrist or dick. And it's hard to argue that my paraphrase was off. From the Times article: Ricco sat at the conference table and spoke to the news media for about 20 minutes, outlining what may be an important and busy week here, something of a new phenomenon for the Mets. The Mets’ plans, for the moment, hinge on what Zobrist decides. If Zobrist signs elsewhere, the Mets did not seem to have a clear fallback plan. The Mets would like to add complementary players in the bullpen and the outfield. Because they want to play Michael Conforto and Juan Lagares regularly, they are not looking for an “everyday” outfielder, Ricco said, but more of a veteran who could platoon with them. That definition effectively ruled out the possibility that the Mets would re-sign Cespedes, the outfield slugger who became a fan favorite last year. “I think it’s unlikely right now that he ends up a Met, I think that’s fair to say,” Ricco said. “I think we will end up meeting with his agent. Right now, I still think he’s looking at a deal that would be north of what we would consider.” Basically, the Mets are all in on Zobrist, and they have no real backup plan, and they had no real intention of pursuing an impact player. I don't know that there was any speculation offered here. It was more along the lines of: "Holy crap, I can't believe Ricco would just show his hand like that" and "The fucking Mets are assholes". Maybe some thought that he was not conveying what he was really thinking, or that he had more up his sleeve. But in the end, turned out he didn't. Basically everything he said was basically all he had. When Zobrist spurned them, they had no backup plan. From the Andy Martino Report following the Winter Meetings: Ricco does not have the luxury to wallow, or reflect; he has to communicate to an entire fan base...“He has some history with the manager in Chicago, it’s a little closer to home for him,” Ricco says of Zobrist, before pausing and conceding the emotional truth of a moment like this. “It’s disappointing, to be honest.” A few minutes later, most of the Mets’ front office staff has returned to the suite. A “what now?” vibe settles over them. “Hey,” says Ricciardi, a streetwise former infielder with a thick Massachusetts accent. “Let’s just get some dinner.” They didn't have a Plan B. They didn't immediately turn to the other options they had lined up. They looked at each other sadly, then got something to eat. It wasn't until the next morning when Huntington called and offered Walker for Niese that the Mets actually saw an option materialize before them. And as we saw after the winter played out, they never pursued Cespedes, or any other impact player. They didn't host his wife and daughter, they didn't take Yoenis on a tour of the NY area. In fact, they actually signed his low-budget replacement, the much maligned Alejandro De Aza, who became the aforementioned veteran who could platoon with the existing guys. The Mets did not "wait out" Cespedes thinking that the market wouldn't materialize. They wrote him off in November, then were surprised when he came back to them in January. Again, the thinking was pretty much right on the nose.