Centerfield

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I looked it up. (It's amazing what you can do these days.) It's Constance Bennett, a movie star from the 1920s and 30s. Of course. How could I forget. I remember her from classics like Wow You Look Just Like Bette Davis.

Right-handed masher. One of the true sluggers in the game. He's a DH, but can play a passable 1B, and can play a shitty 3B. He's 33 years old and reports are that he's looking for a 4 year deal. Obviously he's not in the cards unless Cespedes bolts, but it's an interesting option. Would probably mean the end of the line for the Dude. Who, in this scenario, is maybe traded to upgrade CF/C or 2B. I doubt they non-tender Duda.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think she's just an unidentified flapper. Looks so much like her. And if it's not her, she's going to be named Bette Davis from now on.

You'd have to think he makes sense for an American League team, as he might be ready to contribute with the bat earlier than he can squat behind the plate. It was a given that he was going to get a multi-year deal and probably bolt from Washington, but now I wonder if he takes the QO, gets healthy, then tries again next year. It goes without saying, but I'd be wary of giving a guy a multi-year deal who is coming off a year that looks like it might be an aberration, big, on the wrong side of 30, and coming off multiple knee operations.

I think this will depend on Travis's willingness to be coached. I wonder how the Mets brass feels about that stupid stance. You'd have to think Kevin Long is advising against it no? It's crazy to me that somebody would be so pigheaded about something that is clearly so wrong.

I think there is something magical about that time in a boy's life. My idea of "baseball cards" look like Topps cards from 83-87. (ages 8-12).

I think the Indian Girl kinda looks like Selma Hayek. I propose "Indian Selma Hayek". On Edit: The last one is Bette Davis no?

Yeah, this is just terrific work. I'm amazed that you are able to do this year after year. Thanks BG. I promise to vote more next year. Love the Cespedes card. The look on his face makes it seem like he knows he just won player of the year. As to the results themselves, no surprise on the winners. A little surprised that Granderson is as high as he is, but I think this is a testament to his durability. Seriously? Rice-a-Roni? A reference to San Francisco? I suspect someone in marketing is going to lose their job over this gaffe. Not cool Stockholm. Not cool.

smg58 wrote: He played hurt most (if not all) of the year. I'm for giving him another chance. Is this true? I hadn't heard that.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm not sure what to do about Travis. It would be a shame to trade him now, mainly because his value is pretty low and he may bounce back to be the player that he was in 2015. Ideally, the Mets would bring in a 30-year-old veteran catcher with a solid bat and let Travis be the backup and whatever playing time he gets will provide more information about whether 2016 was a fluke or if it's time to give up on him, as may very well be the case. I'm here too. I was thinking to bring in like a Nick Hundley or Geovany Soto and see what happens. I think this is the wrong time to cut bait on Travis. Ditto what JCL was saying. It's crazy how committed he is to that stance even though he sucks with it. I wonder what the coaches have to say about it.

What do you do with d'Arnaud? Had an .825 OPS in 2015, but regressed badly in 2016. The Julio Franco stance has made his swing impossibly long. He's starting earlier, but constantly behind on the ball anyway. You'd think that the benefit of the longer swing would be increased power, but his SLG saw the biggest dropoff (down 162 points) and his HR's dropped from 12 to 4. Remember, TdA was one of the guys we thought could hit 20 this year. I don't know what to make of him. Can't stay healthy, can't throw out runners. Is now 27 years of age and has been wildly inconsistent. Seriously, I don't know why he wouldn't go back to the earlier stance that had him short and quick through the zone. Matt Wieters is a free agent but he kinda sucks. Wilson Ramos is available and good, but he's not only hurt, but has a history of bad knees.

Frayed Knot wrote: Any approach can be overly optimistic if your estimates for the player(s) are based on hope rather than something a little more grounded, or are moves done for pr effect more than solid baseball reasons. But that can be (and is) done with star players just as easily as with non-stars. I don't know. I think star players are more reliable. Barring injury, you can pencil in their expected production. Star players are not only great, they tend to be consistently great (thereby making them star players). I think you run into trouble when you start projecting (and hoping) for production from the likes of De Aza, Marlon Byrd, Chris Young. Some may work out, but these bounce-around guys are bounce-around guys for a reason. Frayed Knot wrote: Also, replacing a lost player 'in aggregate' doesn't only mean with part-timers and scrap-heap hopefuls. Importing and/or promoting regular, full-time players so as to make smaller or medium upgrades at two or three spots is a way to counter-balance a larger loss at one spot if there's not a viable star-for-star replacement handy. Again, yes this is possible in theory. But can we admit how hard such an approach is? I mean, it's one thing to maintain status quo, but the NY Mets and their 26th ranked offense have to significantly improve. Can it be done after losing your top guy? Sure. But it's really fucking hard. Let's accept your assertion that the loss of Cespedes can be offset by small/medium upgrades at 3 positions. And for the sake of this exercise, let's assume Neil Walker comes back and repeats his great year. We've now used up 5 of the 8 positions, and we are just at break even. The three positions where upgrades are the most likely are CF, C and 1B. Let's assume Duda takes care of 1B by himself, and we upgrade at CF and Catcher. That leaves us SS, RF and 3B to make our improvements. You have to guess that Cabrera will regress at least some after his career year (even with this year, his career OPS is .748). But I think you can offset that because we expect better production from Jay Bruce. Which means that any improvement that we have from last year to next, would realistically have to come from 3B. Now, is it possible that Reyes/Wright find the fountain of youth? Sure. But likely? I'm going with no. So sure, if we lose Cespedes, we will be fine, just as long as we re-sign Walker, keep Duda healthy, upgrade at catcher, upgrade at CF, and have Jay Bruce bounce back. And if all of those things happen, we will be back at square one, and then we can hope that we get sufficient increased production from 3B and the bench so that we can improve by the 53 runs it would take just to put us in the middle of the pack offensively. So possible? Yes. Absolutely. Difficult? Yes. Really fucking difficult. And let's be honest. We are probably not re-signing Neil Walker.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I only started tuning in to baseball again on Monday, hungover from our crappy exit. I too zonked out long before this one was over but congrats Cubs I guess. Good for NL I guess that WCs are out and best 3 survive. I think I'm almost ready to come back. Now that the Giants are out of it, I'll feel better. Would be good too if Washington were eliminated.

I'm going to show my ignorance here, but why wouldn't Tebow go play for the CFL or for NFL Europe or something? I remember that's what football players used to do when I followed. Is there even an NFL Europe anymore?

Speaking of politics and baseball, I wonder how MFY fans, who adored Giuliani during this terms as mayor, feel about him now. I just wish he was wearing an MFY hat when he claims men just talk like that sometimes.

Me too. And I'm surprised that it didn't take a torn ACL to bring that change about. Now I wonder if they'll move the flagpole (or move the fence) before we see a concussion.

Edgy MD wrote: There's also Replacing the Star with a Guy or Guys You Already Have, That You Strongly Feel Is/Are Ready to Break Through, and Are More Likely, by Your Estimation, to Provide Stardom over the Duration of the Terms of the Contract that the Star Is Asking for, While Freeing Up Money for Upgrades Elsewhere. Yes, that is very much true.

Look, I get the draw of wanting to root for a team of scrappy overachievers who outperform expectations. That team is the micro-brewery of baseball. This has nothing to do with trying to build a particular type of team. Don't care about that, never did. Look, ideally Cespedes resigns and/or doesn't opt out of the in-place deal to begin with (yeah right!). But in the event that he leaves -- either because he wants to or because negotiations get to the point where Sandy et al make a judgement call that it doesn't make long-term sense to meet his demands -- then you move on and make other plans. My point is that there are lots of ways to move forward at that point not all of which follow in the simple 'must sign X to replace Y' format and if X < Y then we'll suck. If Cespedes leaves you lose not his total production but the difference between what he produce and what whoever gets the LF ABs next season puts out, whether it's someone already here, someone imported, or some combo of the two. And if whoever it/they wind up being looks likely to produce less then the team will need to make up that gap elsewhere; at 1B?, at catcher?, at 3rd?, CF?, or in several of the above slots. But you can't look at each move like it's unconnected to the whole. I know that's not what you mean to be saying but, when you limit the choices to saying that a team can't afford to lose an 'A' player unless he's replaced by a different 'A' because the sum total of the other options are replacing him with a 'B' or with two 'C-' guys and that means the whole season will be worse, then you kind of are. I think we are largely agreeing with each other. (But please, let's not let that fact keep us from discussing over two pages, it's the CPF after all!) And I get what you are saying that I seem to by isolating it to "by-position" production. You're right that overall upgrades throughout the team can offset the loss of any one star. But I guess I am skeptical that this approach is as easy as some think it is. I would say my reservations to that approach are twofold: 1. Oftentimes the "replacement-by-aggregate" approach is overly optimistic. You often see arguments along the lines of: "We will get Player A, who is not that great a player overall, but is pretty good against righties, and couple him with Player B who hits lefties, and between those two, we will have a decent player. Plus, we'll get Player C back from injury, and you'd think Player D would have to bounce back, because he couldn't be any worse than he was this past year." Except that platoon players don't always bat from their strong side. Lagares had 77 PA's against lefties, 76 against RHP. And sometimes those fringe players just tank. De Aza had a .618 OPS. Star players, generally, tend not to hit that type of floor. And counting on Duda to come back from injury doesn't take into account the guy that will go down unexpectedly in 2017. And sometimes, Jason Bay doesn't bounce back. He just sucks. So, if I saw an analysis that said we can make up for losing Cespedes and Walker because of expected increased projection in A, B, and C, and also took into account expected injuries that are typical in a given year, decline in performance for aging players, regression to norms from guys who may have overachieved in 2016, and all the other things that typically derail best case scenarios in any given year, and if after taking all of those things into account, it was still reasonable to conclude that there would be a better overall offense, then yes, I could get behind such a plan. 2. Intimidation Factor: I have no way of quantifying or proving this, but I feel like a lineup just has to have someone that scares you. We saw how lackluster this lineup looked in the first half of 2015, and when Cespedes was hurt in 2016. Again, I can't prove it, but a lineup without a bona fide star seems to lack that serious threat that causes pitchers to break down.* We saw it in the 90's when Piazza arrived. We saw the difference that Delgado made, and we saw it again when Cespedes was traded here. And I know I'm making an argument based on feelings, and I'm well aware of what I've said about feelings before, but man, I feel like the difference is palpable. So yes, I can get behind a lineup of 8 very good hitters, like I mentioned above, but if I had my preference, I would love to have that thumper (or 3) to scare the shit out of opposing pitchers. *And I know someone will raise Kansas City, but that lineup was stacked. 6 guys with an OPS in the .800's, plus a catcher who hit 21 HR's.

If on-basey leadoff CF's are what your looking for, Dexter Fowler is your guy. .393 OBP, .840 OPS. Plays CF and leads off. Still only 30 years old. Steals a base here and there. I know the OF is crowded, but he would fit the Mets like a glove. Really, I thought that his team needed a leadoff hitter, and a 3 hitter. When they lost Murphy, they lost the guy who can really handle the bat well and hit elite pitching. David Wright used to be that guy, but obviously is no longer. Was hoping Conforto could turn into that guy. I think he might still, despite the struggles this year. Tough decisions.

Terrific work. I can picture Addison Reed immediately wiping his nose after that shot is taken.

Edgy MD wrote: Edwin Encarnacion. He's pretty fly. Thought about that. Nice numbers, hits from the right side. He's a DH, but can play first and third. Might be an interesting fit, but while looking him up, I saw that his nickname is E5.

Replacing a star in the aggregate rather than with one greater-than or equal-to star isn't guaranteed, but neither is the one-for-one replacement. Well, nothing is guaranteed. Not even bringing back the star himself. The object of the off-season is to field the team that gives you the best chance of success. Going after one star to replace another is one way but it's not the only way and sometimes that sort of thinking leads to mis-steps like Coleman for Strawberry or Appier for Hampton, where you not only end up with a worse player but also a long-term contract where you have buyer's remorse practically during your drive out of the showroom. Agreed. And this is the type of move I hate the most. Spending money on B-level talent. I feel like in most of these instances your cheap-in-house option is not far off, and the money is better invested elsewhere. But sometimes they do get you close to what you lost, which is why I guess these moves continue to get made. The way I see it, in terms of likelihood of success, the team facing the loss of a superstar can: 1. Bring back the Star himself. You know your guy. You know what he can do. Barring injury or decline, you can generally expect your guy to be your guy. Sure. This costs money, but this is your best chance of success. 2. Replace the Superstar with Another Superstar. Like the Cardinals and Mariners in the examples above. And depending on the guy you bring in, maybe he can even be better. Variables like switching teams, new ballpark, how he'll react to a new city factor in (in Ichiro's case, crossing the ocean), so your chance of success is probably a tick lower. But I'm cool with this option too. 3. Replace the Star with B Level Talent. The Kevin Appier Principle. Like I mentioned above, I don't like this route at all, but going this way helps minimize the chance that you have a complete black hole. I mean, Kevin Appier wasn't bad. And neither was Todd Zeile. They just may not have been worth the money. Chance of success is less than options 1 and 2, but undoubtedly higher than... 4. Replacing the Star with two C- players and trying to justify it with arguments about splits and improving the bench. Which is what the prevailing thought was last year. If Cespedes had walked, and we trotted out the De Aza/Lagares platoon, we would have been fucked. We would have been under .500 and not sniffed the Wild Card. And for all the talk of minimizing AB's for quadruple A players, we still trotted out our fair share of Campbells and Ty Kellys. And that is the risk of trying to go the cheap route. The chances of success are low, and the downside is tremendous. Even the much celebrated Scott Hatteberg "success" resulted in 84 fewer runs for the A's the following year. Look, I get the draw of wanting to root for a team of scrappy overachievers who outperform expectations. That team is the micro-brewery of baseball. But if your goal is to win, building a team that way is not sound logic. Keeping your star, or replacing him with another star, may be unimaginative and boring, but it is the best chance of success. The Mets, with all their injuries, were third in MLB in ERA. That is terrific. You're probably not going to improve much on that, even if our horses get healthy next year. Where we were fucked was offense. 26th in baseball. And now we are facing a winter where two of our top 3 guys in OWAR (Walker and Cespedes) are free agents. And the third (Cabrera) is probably looking at a correction year. And sure, maybe you get some offense back with a healthy Duda, but we are looking at a big hill to climb, just to get back to sucking. I mean, everyone involved with the Mets (management, players, fans) all agree the offense has to get better. If Walker and Cespedes leave and take their 54 HR's with them, you have to make up this production, before you even think about actually improving the offense. How Sandy can do that in this market? I have no clue. But I'm open to suggestions.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I mean the obvious parallel is the A's making up for losing Giambi with Dave Jutice & Hattiberg, which of course happened on Sandy's watch. Nobody but the accountants has said it was preferable, just one way to go it. Sure. One way to go about it. And I guess we could try that. Except we are not the 2001 A's. That team had MVP Giambi, and studs Eric Chavez and Miguel Tejada, who all mashed over 30 HR's and drove in more than 110. That team scored 884 runs, 5th in MLB. After losing Giambi, and replacing him with very capable and serviceable replacements, they scored 84 fewer runs in 2002. But they were still 9th in MLB in scoring, and behind their strong pitching, won the division. If the 2016 Mets did the same thing (lose Cespedes, replace him with capable and serviceable replacements, and score 84 fewer runs) in 2017, they will score 587 runs. Which would have been good for dead last (23 runs behind Philadelphia) this past season.

Frayed Knot wrote: Am I crazy? I think elite teams are made up of elite players. One need only look at the rosters of these playoff teams to see that. And I don't think you can make up for the loss of an elite player by replacing him with 3 mediocre players. And yet the Cardinals survived and even thrived (certainly better than the Angels have) after allowing Pujols to walk, as did the Mariners who set a record by eking out 116 regular season victories the very year ARod took his bat and glove to Texas. Both teams, in fact, scored more runs the following season without those two guys who probably rate as the most productive hitters of last 30 years or more. And there are other examples of this throughout the game. The problem isn't in recognizing that Cespedes is certainly A key ingredient in building a team, particularly one seemingly on the brink. The problem is allowing yourself to get locked into the line of thinking that treats retaining him as the only way to do things. I understand that. Which is why I said: I'm fine with replacing Cespedes' production with someone else should he choose to walk, but like last year, I would want that replacement to bring us what Cespedes brings. A legitimate, middle of the order threat. The 2012 Cardinals brought in Carlos Beltran, who hit 32 HR's and drove in 97. The 2001 Mariners signed some guy named Ichiro who went on the win the MVP. Again, I have no problem with the Mets replacing Cespedes with elite talent, like the 2012 Cardinals and the 2001 Mariners. But if the Cards and Mariners had relied on Alejandro De Aza and a healthy d'Arnaud, I suspect their fates would have been different.

I guess it depends what you mean by "elite". He's the only Met in the top 40 of MLB for OPS. http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/batting/_/seasontype/2/sort/OPS/qualified/true If he were to leave, we would not have anyone in the top 40, and we'd be the only playoff team without such a player. But I get what you mean. He's not a top 10 HR guy, he's not going to hit .300, and his OBP is not amazing. But he's the best we got, and barring a trade, I don't see us getting anyone else elite for next year. It's a tall order. Even with Cespedes and Walker, this team was 26 out of 30 in runs scored. The idea this winter should be to get better on offense, not just tread water. And improvement is going to be hard to do if you lose Cespedes, or Walker, or both. And again, not impossible if you fill in with other elite talent, but please don't try to sell me on "Journeyman A, platooned with Justin Ruggiano will make up the difference...blah blah blah."