Centerfield

I keep reading his name as Roman Numeral.

Correct. It's about the money. It's always been about the money, and nothing but the money. If it wasn't about the money, they would have pursued Heyward, or Upton, or any of the other front-line players available this winter. And if it were about the "right fit", whatever that means, they never would have signed De Aza. You know what I hate about this winter? I found myself rooting for a four year deal for Zobrist and a four year deal for Cespedes even though I think these are not great deals, because the Mets give the impression that if they don't do this, they won't do anything to improve the club. There were a ton of great options available this winter, but there was zero chance that the Mets would even think about them. And for the record, even if they sign Cespedes, they will still be woefully short in terms of payroll.

Remember, Cespedes went cold after Tom Koehler hit him with a pitch. After that, the Mets entire offense went cold, and stayed cold until the end of the year. The only exception to that was DudaFest Part II in Cincinnati.

But all kidding aside, if the reports are true and he really wants to come back to the Mets, then that's awesome. He goes up a bunch of notches in my book. That's partly why I love Wilmer Flores. Wait, maybe he should try crying?

And now reports are that he's reached out to the Yankees. Dude, he is totally playing up our rivals to make us jealous. I think he really likes us!

Frayed Knot wrote: OBA is a biggie though, and while the three year gap isn't as big as the one from just last year, it's still sizable and we know it's important to Sandy. Tack on that plus a speed gap and four years of age difference ... Understood. And agreed. How strange is it that you cite to a great candidate, and one of the considerations has to be "Is he too good for us?"

dgwphotography wrote: 3 years with a one year opt out would be perfect. Must not get excited. Must not get excited. Must not get excited. Much too late. Much too late. Much too late.

Wilmer Flores was interviewed on Mets Hot Stove last night. He was asked what kind of a teammate Yoenis Cespedes was, and he said (I'm afraid I'm paraphrasing here), "He wasn't special. He was a teammate who was there." I'm trying to figure out how to read this. It could be: "Eh. Whatevers. He's nothing special as a teammate. He's just there, youknowwhati'msayin?" "He's great. Even though he's a superstar, he needs no special treatment. He's always there for you."

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Me too. If they could get him for three years with a one-year opt-out, that would be perfect. Sign me up for this. And if he walks, FREE DRAFT PICK!

Frayed Knot wrote: Just wondering why we think that this is in the cards considering his production of late. Cuz he'll turn 39 during the coming season and has bounced between seven clubs since 2012 Also don't ignore Byrd's .290 OBA this past year when declaring that he's been "better than Granderson" (.364); Marlon's going to make a lot more outs given equal time and the small difference in slugging is probably more stadium related (1,000 ABs in Cincy & Philly) And if it's not in the cards because someone offers him a multi-year deal with vague promises of 100+ starts/year well then there's a decent chance he's not coming here. Re: Granderson I was referring to the three-year period you cited, where Marlon has a higher BA, more HRs, RBI, and higher OPS. Basically the only thing Curtis has on him is OBP. Re: Byrd But absolutely. I'm down with Marlon Byrd. I would love if we could get him. I just remember looking up his numbers a few weeks ago and writing him off thinking someone would give him either a multi-year deal or at least the chance to start.

Sure. If he agrees to a backup role and a 1 year deal, great. Just wondering why we think that this is in the cards considering his production of late.

Ken Rosenthal says Cespedes is torn between the 5 year deal from the Nats, and his desire to stay with the Mets. http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/yoenis-cespedes-nationals-offer-five-year-deal-would-prefer-stay-with-mets-ken-rosenthal-012116 Come on guys. He's a terrific player and he wants to come back. Four years. Team option for 5 with a buyout. I think this gets it done.

Frayed Knot wrote: Now ideally he's not going to get 500 ABs w/the 2016 Mets but that's the good part, he, unlike Cespedes, isn't being signed to lead the offense or play every day. Two questions: 1. What do you think it would take to get him? (Years and AAV) 2. He's averaged 543 AB's the last 3 years to go along with his average of 26 HR's. How can we be sure he's not looking to play every day? To clarify, it would be great if we could get him, for cheap and have him agree to a part-time role, but when comparing over those three years you cite, he's been healthier and better than Curtis Granderson.

And for what it's worth, Heyman is now saying 5 years, around $100 million offered by Washington. If that's true, Cespedes is gone. And joins Murphy in Washington.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: By OK I mean adequate. By adequate I mean, free of major suck-holes 1-8 in the lineup. I think they can compete for a playoff spot with that. And I think they will not be "doomed" or anything like that. I just think it sucks that they had the opportunity to do so much more, and for whatever reason, didn't.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I gotta be honest -- I still don't see the sense of Cespedes unless the Mets are also prepared to trade high on Grandy/Conforto or low on Lagares. And even then there are all those warning signs. The sense of bringing in Cespedes, is that he is a terrific hitter. He is leaps and bounds better than Lagares. He will likely outperform Granderson, and though we hope Conforto has a higher ceiling, we just don't know what he will be yet. You don't need to trade any of those four, because there are plenty of AB's in a season for 4 outfielders. You have to assume some injuries, etc. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: My sense is that they go into the year with what they have and reassess in the summer. It would be more apparent then if its necessary to replace/upgrade the Lagares/DeAza duo and/or load up on more power. Also by then there's a chance Zimmo is an option. My sense is that this is what they will do as well. But bringing in Cespedes is highly preferable. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: And when/if that's the case you figure to have plenty fuel for a potential trade -- Harvey, Plawecki/dArnaud, Lagares, Wheeler, Flores/Walker/Herrera just to name a few -- and can look toward a controllable type. Well, I guess you can always make a trade. But trades are a give and take. Re-signing your own player is just a take. Plus, you have to wait until the market develops and hope that there is a match. Can the Mets stay alive until this happens? Maybe. Maybe even probably. But it's a risk. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: There's a school of thought that teams will be anxious to trade over the summer given what looks to be an underwhelming FA class in 2016. It is a weak FA market next year, and more teams will be looking to improve via trades. And that means more competition, which means it's harder to make that trade. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: So I'm saying, its not ideal but theoretically okay to go into the year knowing your offense won't likely have the NL HR king as long as your options are open, and the Mets' are. Thoughts? Well, whether or not we have Cespedes, we are not going to have the NL HR king. The real question here is whether it's ok to go in knowing that the offense could be a weakness. And I guess I don't really know what you mean by "ok". I mean, everything is ok. The Mets don't get fined for this. I guess what you mean is whether it's ok to us, as fans. And to that I say, it depends on the fan. If your objective each off-season is to create a team that is competitive, then sure. The Mets have done this. If your objective is to create a juggernaut, then no, I don't think the Mets have done that. My philosophy is that the Mets (and really every team) should use the off-season to build as good a team as they possibly can while balancing future interests. And here, by taking a pass not just with Cespedes, but the myriad of great options that were available this winter, they have failed. It's funny that the knock on Cespedes is that he's been gifted with incredible talent, but he lacks that killer instinct required to make the most of that talent. And so instead of being amazing, he's just good enough. But the Mets, if anything, are like the team version of Cespedes. They have been gifted an incredible home-grown rotation, but they are demonstrating a lack of killer instinct required to make take them over the top. So instead of becoming a legendary team, they will be just good enough.

As has been said before, there is no right answer. We can't know. But the Mets won the division going away. If Cespedes is not here, it's a tight race. With talk of collapses and all that. So whereas with Cespedes, we win that division handily, without him, it's 50/50. At least. I tend to think his presence gave the Mets a feeling of invincibility, that he relaxed everyone around him and demoralized the Nats. I also think the timing of his hits were amazing. But I can't give you any data to support that. I do want to point out one more thing. I know everyone gets on him for his defense in the post-season, but in Game 1 of the NLCS he made one of the best (and most important) throws I have ever seen. It was the top of the 5th and the Cubs had just tied the game at 1. They were threatening still, with Castro on second with 1 out. Baez followed with a single to LF. Cespedes charged it and threw an absolute laser to the plate. Castro was out. The stadium went wild. Suddenly, instead of the Cubs taking the lead and still threatening with 1 out, it remained tied, and allowed the Mets to issue an IBB and get Lester for the last out. Huge, huge play. If the Cubs take the lead there, do they win? And how daunting is it facing Arrieta down 1-0 at home? We don't know. I don't know. I have my reservations about Cespedes too. Of the elite bats available this offseason, he was the last option for me, in terms of preference. But the guy is a very good player overall and was absolutely fucking amazing last year. I'm shocked that this is even a discussion.

By the way, if Straw was billed as "The Black Ted Williams", is it ok for us to hope that Conforto is "The White Darryl Strawberry"?

I think Edgy is right though. Ochoa really started that parade of five-tool busts. I feel like for a long time the Mets were dead set on finding the next Darryl Strawberry.

Yeah, that would make me hurl.

I think this a good move. The every other year thing has to be a fluke right?

The case against: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/162347602/juan-lagares-part-of-productive-mets-outfield It's a pretty weak argument if you ask me. For what it's worth, I think that the Mets outfield could be fine. I just think that given the uncertainty of each of our core three (Lagarez, Conforto, Granderson), it's a stretch to say that it's probable that the outfield will be fine. And by no means can you say it is fine. As our author does. It's a tough thesis. He has to justify a 144 differential in career OPS that Lagares (.661) gives up to Cespedes (.805) To start, Petriello starts by tempering enthusiasm for Cespedes. Like others, he states that Yoenis: almost certainly isn't quite the star he looked like for a short time in Queens We've heard the arguments before. Small sample size. Results skewed by facing historically bad pitching. "Adventurous" in CF. Etc. All valid points. We cannot put too much weight on what he did in August and September. We have to consider what he will give us going forward. Then he gets into the meat of his argument. Which, although he says is not entirely about Juan Lagares, is pretty much entirely about Juan Lagares. Lagares will never be an offensive star, but after a solid 2014 and a hot finish to 2015, there's reason to believe he can be good enough. Not sure which Lagares he was watching in 2014, but the one that played for the Mets had a .703 OPS. Juan did have a hot finish to 2015. (.813 OPS in August. Even better at .929 in September.) And that's really Petriello's focus there. He further supports his "Lagares is pretty good" theory by citing Juan's exit velocity during the last two months of the season, which were much higher than his first four months. But wait, aren't these the same two months that we are discounting for Cespedes? Wasn't Lagares also facing historically bad pitching? Didn't Juan but up better numbers in this stretch than he's ever put up before? Disappointingly, our author never addresses this apparent discrepancy in logic. We are just left to accept that Cespedes' success during August and September was a fluke. But Juan Lagares' success in August and September is meaningful. But wait, we have two more outfielders to think of. Let's start with Conforto. According to Petriello: Conforto is a star in the making, after having hit .270/.335/.506 and with average exit velocity and launch angles that mirror those of Paul Goldschmidt. Great numbers. And I have really high hopes for Conforto. But when did he put up those number? August and September of 2015. There is a trend emerging here. Could he be great? Sure. But there is no way we can count on that as of right now. And finally, Curtis Granderson. Granderson, perpetually unloved because he no longer hits 40-plus homers, just had a five-win season and was a more valuable hitter than Jose Abreu or Prince Fielder. Curtis Granderson just had a great year. Unlike the others, his resurgence went beyond August and September. He also had a .915 OPS in June. But whereas Petriello's arguments relating to Cespedes and Lagares focus on what we expect them to do in 2016, his only justification of Curtis Granderson focuses on what Curtis already did in 2015. And with good reason. Curtis Granderson is a strong candidate to fall back to the pack in 2016. The projections suggest it. His numbers over the last few seasons suggest it. We all hope Curtis can replicate this last season, but we know that this not something we can count on. Finally, he doesn't say much about De Aza. But he does mention this: as the lefty-swinging De Aza is an ideal platoon partner [to Lagares] Sure. Except that De Aza is not really a centerfielder. So if you are keeping track, Cespedes in CF is "adventurous". De Aza is "ideal". Effectively, this guy, in one article, demonstrates nearly all of the double standards used by Cespedes detractors. *Cespedes' success last season is not meaningful because of small sample size! Besides, we can offset his loss by a full year of Michael Conforto. What? Sample size? Huh? *Don't re-sign Cespedes. Projections say he will have a fallback year! Besides, we have Curtis Granderson. What do the projections say? Come on. Baseball isn't played on a computer. *Cespedes sucks in CF! (and Granderson can't play it either) So let's go with De Aza instead. He seems ideal.

I'm not sure. I'd give him a flyer. Minor league deal definitely. Maybe even an incentive-laden major league deal with a low guaranteed base. If they can all bounce back to form, a Mejia-Parnell-Familia bullpen would be pretty nasty. With Edgin and Blevins coming from the left side. I know. 3 of the 5 didn't pitch last year, and Parnell sucked when he did, but you never know with middle relief.

NL TeamProjected 2015 PayrollAL TeamProjected 2015 PayrollLos Angeles Dodgers$272,789,040New York Yankees$219,282,196San Francisco Giants$172,672,111Boston Red Sox$187,407,202Washington Nationals$164,920,505Detroit Tigers$173,813,750Philadelphia Phillies$135,827,500Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim$150,933,083St. Louis Cardinals$120,869,458Texas Rangers$142,140,873Chicago Cubs$119,006,885Toronto Blue Jays$122,506,600Cincinnati Reds$117,197,072Seattle Mariners$119,798,060Milwaukee Brewers$105,002,536Chicago White Sox$115,238,678Colorado Rockies$102,006,130Kansas City Royals$113,618,650New York Mets$101,409,244Baltimore Orioles$110,146,097San Diego Padres$100,675,896Minnesota Twins$108,945,000Atlanta Braves$97,578,565Cleveland Indians$86,091,175Arizona Diamondbacks$91,518,833Oakland A's$86,086,667Pittsburgh Pirates$88,278,500Tampa Bay Rays$76,061,707Miami Marlins$68,479,000Houston Astros$70,910,100Sum:$1,858,231,275 Sum:$1,882,979,838 Mean:$123,882,085 Mean:$125,531,989 I think what batmags is saying is that the trend he's citing doesn't affect the outliers as much. If you look at the side by side comparisons, if you exclude the top 2 teams and the bottom 2 teams, 9 of 11 AL clubs outspend their counterpart. I kinda lost the point of what you guys were arguing, and I have no idea if it makes sense to artificially exclude the teams on both ends. the charts would look a lot more comparable, cross-wise, if you scooch the mets up to a $185M-ish payroll where they fuckin' belong. This message has been brought to you by PAW.

Seems like a lot of guys in the Mets farm-system are getting busted. I realize my exposure is skewed because I only pay attention to Mets-related news, but I would guess this is more than normal.