Centerfield

That's kind of what makes it tough. If the covers themselves were a wash, I'd definitely take Wright for sentimental reasons over Cespedes. But I feel like that DN cover is just much, much better. The headline, the armband, Granderson's expression. The whole thing is so second half 2015. Plus I don't like the Harvey tidbit on "Capital". The mask guy on Yes-Pedes freaks me out a bit. I assume that's a Nats fan? I don't remember if the picture made sense at the time, but right now it looks kinda creepy and out of place. On Edit: Plus I love that we could confidently state that the Nats were dead since the lead had reached 7. Obviously, that's a special number for us. I like how it shows that we had incredible confidence in the team, and we were saying fuck you to any possibility of a collapse.

Very, very tough. Drawing first blood versus the nail in the coffin. Gonna brew on this one a while.

themetfairy wrote: I chose neutral. We haven't even hit the Baseball Equinox yet (as calculated by G-Fafif, that will occur on January 17th this year). I'm reserving judgment for the moment. You know, I would have sworn we were past the halfway point. I think metfairy is saying I'm guilty of premature evaluation. I hate when that happens.* *In my defense, this type of thing happens to 50% of men over 40. So the woman in the football jersey says.

He has an ERA in the 2's every other year. If we were smart we'd wait until next year to sign him.

This is why I can't get anything done at work. I think of random combinations of Mets "Due Up" combos Due Up: Hu Ishii d'Arnaud

This is Rinku Singh. Prospect in the Pirates organization and subject of the Disney movie. I'm hoping that the Mets get him, and through some double switch, are forced to bat him in the middle of the lineup. So that when you see the "Due up" screen, it will say: Duda Wright Singh

Crazy Idea: how about Omar Minaya? He was a terrific scout. Just don't let him anywhere near the controls.

Ceetar wrote: Centerfield wrote: But I tell you, come September, we are going to want those 5 wins. Cespedes, in by far his best year, produced 6.7 fWAR. he's projected for half that. Even if you split the difference to get your 5 wins, that's above replacement level, something that probably won't be what the Mets produce in the outfield. Hell De Aza's probably good for about 2 if you just gave him the whole season. Adding Cespedes to the current mix of outfielders definitely improves them, but it's nowhere near 5 wins. That's a fair point. I'm not convinced that WAR (I don't know what fWAR is) translates win for win like that. I feel like impact players make more of a difference than what their WAR may indicate. (Familia had a WAR of 2.7. I don't believe we win 87.3 games without him). But I have no way of proving this. My post was based on the objective stat "gut feel". And dammit if that second half team didn't feel like it could win 120.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Thing is, I'm not sure how great an improvement there really was to the D. Let's be charitable and say it went from "Sucky" to "Less Sucky." I was hoping for "weakness" to "strength." That's kind of where I am with the offense. I feel like we replaced out the Campbells and Mayberrys with guys who are less sucky. And that's ok I guess. But I was hoping for "awesome".

Frayed Knot wrote: Centerfield wrote: If the Mets had done nothing but return the October team, I think we would be looking at a 100+ win juggernaut. Instead, we have a team that can win 90 games and the division, but with very little margin of error. Let's assume for the moment that Walker for Murph was essentially a neutral swap and take the pessimistic view that the additions of deAza + Cabrera add nothing that you wouldn't get from Kirk and/or Kelly Johnson; the only real loss from October '15 is Cespedes to whom you're assigning a 10+ win gap. That's not very likely under the best of circumstances. That does seem like a lot. For what it's worth, it's not Walker for Murph. The net there is Walker for Niese and Murph, essentially. We've also lost Clippard, though I guess Blevins offsets that a bit. But you're right, the net loss of Cespedes is probably not close to 10 games. Maybe it would have been 95 wins then. But I tell you, come September, we are going to want those 5 wins.

Frayed Knot wrote: Well, DePodesta did play college football (he isn't really built like Jonah Hill) and I suppose sports management is sports management. The fact that the Browns are such a dysfunctional outfit means there's probably nowhere to go but up. It would be funny if Jonah Hill just showed up and assumed the job. How long do you think it would take for the Browns to notice? This news is so strange I don't know what to do with it. I feel like the Browns should give us like a draft pick or something.

To no one's surprise, I went with dislike. Only the Walker trade and the fact that we have not signed any bad, crippling contracts keeps me from clicking "hate". If the Mets had done nothing but return the October team, I think we would be looking at a 100+ win juggernaut. Instead, we have a team that can win 90 games and the division, but with very little margin of error. But I get it. Doing that would have cost money. And the Wilpons don't have any. But even if they didn't have the capability to increase payroll, even the resources that we have could have been re-allocated to bring in more impact players. You just have to be able to sign multi-year deals. And some players are worth the risk. I'm trying to separate out the absolute venom I feel toward the owners. I'm trying to not let the fact that we likely won't operate as a big market team for years to come color my assessment of the off-season, but even that aside, I think this off-season is a major disappointment. The only saving grace is that it's only January 5. And there is still time to do something. However unlikely as it may be.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Pedro's a smart dude, but, hell, even for savants, what's comfortable isn't necessarily what's good for us. I mean, ask a heroin user if he prefers to be high. Back to the voting, though, some Digital Dandy* writer or other recently said something to the effect of, looking at these ballots, you can pretty plainly tell the difference between those who love baseball and those who simply made a living reporting on it. I don't remember who it was, but I agree wholeheartedly. (I do remember he counted Noble among those who enjoy the "gatekeeper"/access thing more than they actually love, or even like, the sport. Sadly, I get a similar feeling from his writing/opinions.) I read that too. Agree wholeheartedly on Marty Noble. On the other end of the spectrum, there is Ken Rosenthal. So likeable. And seems to really love covering the game.

For what it's worth, KC is firmly in the "Wilpons Suck!" camp.

We've done the individual transactions. What are your feelings about the off-season moves as a whole? This poll assumes no further significant moves are made. We can re-assess at the end of the winter, especially if they still have a big move in them.

I'd have to read the actual text FK is alluding to, but results aside, if Pedro is saying he preferred pitching to Castro for whatever reason, real or imagined, I don't think you can question him on that.

I predict a Conforto landslide. (Already 4-1 so not much of a prediction but whatever)

What is said there is nice and comforting but I think the lack of one big bat puts too much pressure on those young pitchers. How many games were decided by 1 run last year? I feel it's a lot to expect the pitching to completely carry the team. I don't think that the new additions replace what was lost offensively. I want these young guns to be able to relax and do their jobs. That's so much more difficult when the team doesn't score runs. I like what he says, but I can't agree. If it goes that way I will not complain and gladly be wrong. Agree 100%. The author does some good work. It is a much better argument than some who try to justify the Mets' lackluster offseason, but I think he makes some big assumptions: 1. Injuries: He mentions it in brief. But his idea is that absent a 1987-like epidemic, the Mets should be fine. This is faulty thinking. A couple of minor trips to the DL for even just two of those starters can have a big impact on his theory. A few missed starts by the big four and suddenly his 92 win projection drops to 88 or 89. Suddenly, the outcome of the season is much more in question. 2. Performance: You mentioned the 1 run games. Definitely a factor. On top of that, imagine if the big four take just a small step back. This is not out of the question since Matz and Syndergaard don't even have a full season's experience combined. And the pressure you cite. I think it's a dick move to tell your young guns "Hey, we skimped out on the bats because you guys are great. Now go out there and pitch like aces." These four pitched great last season. If they fall to "pretty good", we fall below 90 wins. 3. The Rest of the Division: Last year the Mets reached 90 wins in large part by beating up on some crap teams. Atlanta will suck again. They might even be worse. But Philly had some nice young players and may take a step forward (they won't contend, but they might be better). And Miami you'd think would definitely take step up with the return of Jose Fernandez. (Suddenly some of those 2-1 wins become 1-0 losses). Washington is the wild card here. As they stand now, they might not win much more than 83 games. But the indications are that Washington is not done yet. They've been linked to some big names, so we'll have to wait and see. My point is that you can't assume last year's win percentages will hold since the competition will be different. And most likely, better. And most importantly, since when is "good enough" our goal. The goal of the offseason should be to put the best team possible on the field. Opportunities to put together a 110 win juggernaut don't come around often. I am not exaggerating when I say an opportunity this good with four potential aces may never happen again in our lifetimes (many of us are middle aged, when has this ever happened before?). It is absolutely foolish not to take advantage of it. Look, I still think we can be a good team, and I think we will win 90 games too. But it's certainly not a given. On Edit: I may be wrong about Washington. I just looked a their team. Their lineup is pretty solid. Daniel Murphy, Anthony Rendon and Bryce Harper are a nice core. Throw in Werth and Zimmerman and they're going to score some runs. Their rotation lost Zimmerman, but they still have Scherzer, Strassburg and Gio Gonzalez. If they don't underachieve again, they might be at 85-90 wins as constructed.

Especially in light of the fact that doing so might cost the author money. Look, the admins can decide the extent to which they want to police this, but for me, if I see an article posted, I'll probably just give it a few clicks for good measure. I waste so much time on the internet anyway. Might as well help some Met-writers make a few bucks.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: So as an author, I'd get upset when people cut-and-pasted my stories into blogs and forums and things. It was affecting my paycheck. I needed the clicks, even if it was just five or 10 or 30 people, it got me that much closer to the monthly quota. End of discussion no? People need to make a living.

One way to settle this could be to just email Rubin and ask him right? He's pretty responsive to emails. Man. If only we knew someone who writes articles on the internet for a living.

That's pretty cool. We should reach out and invite him back. Kudos to anyone who figures out how to make a living writing about the Mets. All of us except Greg pretty much do it for free.

The new policy makes a lot of sense. I'll work within those guidelines. Just want to point out here that batmags and ceetar seem to fall on the same side of this debate. That's pretty notable.

Back to the original article, why does Mark Healey sound so familiar? Was he a poster here at one time?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Centerfield wrote: Is there a rationale behind the years listed in the thread title? Was the last year cut off? I was trying to look up what kind of season the Mets had in 198 A.D., but I came up empty. Did you check UMDB? That guy keeps track of everything.