Centerfield

Actually, I take back the 4 years part. I have no idea what will get it done. I think the Upton contract proved that no one seems to have any clue what is really going on.

Ken Rosenthal has the answer: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/new-york-mets-yoenis-cespedes-five-year-contract-011916 I don't think it would take 5 years. I think 4 years probably gets it done. Love this part: The Mets should have the money. They have spent a combined $35.5 million on four free agents this offseason – less than the Marlins, less than the Rockies, less than the Athletics – and made a trade for second baseman Neil Walker that was essentially cash-neutral. Their payroll, including pending arbitration cases, does not figure to increase much beyond where it was at the end of last season – about $110 million. By contrast, the payroll of the Mets’ World Series opponent – the Royals – figures to top $130 million. The Royals play in Kansas City, a low-revenue market in the Midwest. The Mets play in New York, a high-revenue market in the nation’s media capital. What’s wrong with this picture? Mets officials bristle at criticism that they do not spend enough money. Well, they hear such criticism because they ... do ... not ... spend ... enough money.

What do you mean? Yes!

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The post-McCourt Dodgers are an outlier, payroll-wise. And the thing to do, statistically, with outlier data is to exclude it. That's not me talking. That's not my idea. That's science. Math and shit. The DH increases costs, especially at the top end, among the teams that spend the most. What more can I say? If you don't wanna believe it, you don't have to. Understood. I see the correlation. If you exclude the Dodgers (and their AL counterpart MFY's), the next 5 AL teams all have higher payrolls than the next 5 NL teams in 2015. In 2014, it's 4 out of 5. I'll leave it to you and Edgy to determine if that is significant, or if the Dodgers should properly be excluded.

I remember him having to carry a pink backpack. And though I don't have any memory of this, I'm guessing Fman made a joke or two involving his name.

Yup. You would need to do a long-term breakdown to see. I would guess there wouldn't be much difference. I think clubs have a certain amount they can spend, and tend to use it all up, whatever that amount is. If they have money left over, I'm guessing they buy middle relievers. They're like the checkout line bait of baseball.

Here's the same data for 2014, with the National League topping the American League by 2.08%. NL TeamProjected 2014 PayrollAL TeamProjected 2014 PayrollLA Dodgers$235,295,219NY Yankees$203,812,506Philadelphia Phillies$180,052,723Boston Red Sox$162,817,411San Francisco Giants$154,185,878Detroit Tigers$162,228,527Washington Nationals$134,704,437LA Angels$155,692,000Arizona Diamondbacks$112,688,666Texas Rangers$136,036,172Cincinnati Reds$112,390,772Toronto Blue Jays$132,628,700St. Louis Cardinals$111,020,360Baltimore Orioles$107,406,623Atlanta Braves$110,897,341Seattle Mariners$92,081,943Milwaukee Brewers$103,844,806Kansas City Royals$92,034,345Colorado Rockies$95,832,071Chicago White Sox$91,159,254San Diego Padres$90,094,196Minnesota Twins$85,776,500NY Mets$89,051,758Oakland A's$83,401,400Chicago Cubs$89,007,857Cleveland Indians$82,534,800Pittsburgh Pirates$78,111,667Tampa Bay Rays$77,062,891Miami Marlins$47,565,400Houston Astros$44,544,174Sum:$1,744,743,151 Sum:$1,709,217,246 Mean:$116,316,210 Mean:$113,947,816 But that trend doesn't exist in 2014, where looking at the teams side by side, the NL clubs win over their counterpart.

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.

6 years, 125 million to the Tigers. Bob Nightengale of USA Today. They say long-term deals don't usually work out, and I understand the odds are against it. But this deal looks like it could be one of the better ones. Crazy good lineup. Really wanted to see the Mets get involved on Heyward and Upton. Cespedes, I feel, is a worse bet than either of these two. I've known for a while that there was no chance here, but still disappointing. As for what this means for Cespedes, I'm trying to decide if I'm happy another team is off the board, or if I'm starting to realize that a short-term deal just ain't happening.

Edgy MD wrote: I have no problem if they play poor defense. Trading a skill in one area for a paucity in another is part of sports. It makes for better fundamental strategy, and it humanizes players and makes them relatable. It makes the rarity of five tool player that much more remarkable. But such beasts as young A-Rod or the like become less special when the Manny Ramirezes are artificially protected from having to employ their most lacking tools. And what brings more joy than Bartolo Colon briefly breaking free from what is presumed to be his limitations and slugging an RBI double? Or skedaddling off the mound and flipping an assist behind his back? Or Rusty Staub playing the outfield for the first time in years and making a game-saving shoestring catch in extra innings? Or a 280-pound tackle finding a tasty pastry of a football suddenly bouncing into his arms and pumping his bloated form down the field with all the joy of a third-grader? Even when they fail — even when their weaknesses are exposed and they utterly, utterly fail (think Todd Hundley, 1998, playing the outfield), that's real human drama. Truth and beauty and nobility and courage are bursting out all over. Generalization is good. Specialization is bad. In my world (and I do aim to someday have one), professional baseball rosters will be limited to about 16 players. Everybody will have to hit. Everybody will have to play multiple positions. Most everybody will eventually be called on to pitch an inning here or there, including being called in from the outfield to warm up mid-inning. And the human person will shine and God will we glorified. Yup. It also hurts the Syndegaards of the world who can go out there and be a real threat. His counterpart may not even know which end of the bat to hold. Also DH's get to (in theory) devote all time and energy into hitting, where the Beltrans and A-Rods have to shag fly balls, practice grounders, etc. Hate the DH. Hate it hate it hate it.

Went with Yes-Pedes. Killing the Nats last year was fucking awesome.

Conforto. Going away.

Here it is: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/video-syndergaard-hits-monster-hr-mets-triple-a-team-article-1.2214621 Noah Syndergaard: "Tell the DH rule to come see me 60 ft, 6 inches away."

I feel like I ready that Noah Syndergaard hit a HR in Las Vegas. How is that possible if they have the DH?

We may not end up with Cespedes, or Upton or anyone else. But at least we know who donated that suit to the second hand store in My Cousin Vinny.

Look at what Syndegaard and Matz did with the bat this year. Why would anyone want to take that joy away. The DH is stupid.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Centerfield wrote: Make of it what you will. This has been the strangest pursuit of a big-name free agent that I can remember. Which makes me wonder if this is a legitimate pursuit at all, or a rumor floated out knowing that it someone else will eventually give him a long-term deal.

Lefty Specialist wrote: My fear with Yo was that a long-term deal would make him fat and complacent, plus we'd be paying for him when he was 35 or so. Let me tell you something son. There are worse things you can be than fat and complacent. And 35? 35 is a baby.

Lots of consistent reporting out there today. John Harper at the DN says the price for Cespedes is falling, so the Mets should find a way to get it done. Jon Heyman on his twitter says there is lots of interest in Cespedes, so there's no chance he'll have to take a short term deal. Make of it what you will. And as has been the case all winter long, nothing to even suggest the Mets are considering Upton, though he is the best hitter available. I don't know. I got my hopes up for a bit, but I'm back to feeling like the Mets are not going to do a thing.

Beat guys seem to agree that the O's are out. Not sure where this leaves Cespedes. I wonder if the Mets are really legitimate in their interest to bring back Yo short term, or if they are just floating that out there for PR purposes.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The only aspect of this story that matters: Are the Orioles still in on Cespedes, or are they no longer in the picture? Ken Rosenthal says they are likely out and will focus on starting pitching. Good news I would say.

Chris Davis back to the O's.

seawolf17 wrote: Centerfield wrote: I wonder if the O's and Cespedes have this agreement in place, where they pretend to be interested in each other so that Yo and make Chris Davis jealous, and the O's can drive the Mets' price up. WAIT. They sign Yo, we sign Chris Davis, then we trade them Duda for Manny Machado, Adam Jones, and the ghost of Tippy Martinez. DONE. DONE!

Mets lurk in Yoenis Cespedes market with short-term bucks Kevin Kernan in the Post says: The Mets are monitoring the situation closely, but do not have a one-year offer on the table. According to multiple sources, the Mets continue to look at one- to three-year scenarios with Cespedes. The Mets would be willing to go three years for about $60 million. If for some reason Cespedes does not take the Orioles’ deal, and wants to bet on himself on a one-year deal with the hopes of hitting it even bigger as a free agent among next season’s weaker class, the Mets would be more than happy to sign him to a one-year deal in the $18 million-$22 million range. I wonder if the O's and Cespedes have this agreement in place, where they pretend to be interested in each other so that Yo and make Chris Davis jealous, and the O's can drive the Mets' price up. If it's an 80's movie, Yo and O then fall in love while pretending to like each other.

HahnSolo wrote: Centerfield wrote: 6-1. Interesting. I was wondering if it was just me. I was sitting here earlier today thinking "God, why doesn't Sandy just offer more years." Then I got to thinking, if it's just between the O's and Mets (big assumption) he may not need to. He might be playing this perfectly. Who knows. Glad to hear the Mets are sniffing around though. Since I'm the only dissenter to this point, would the votes be the same if--all other things being equal--the team offering the 1-year deal was anyone other than the Mets? Tough to say right? I've been asking myself to be honest and I'm having trouble doing this, even to me. I think if the Mets go to 3/$75 with an opt out after 1 it becomes a no-brainer. And if we walks we get a draft pick.