Centerfield

Two great moments. It's tough. It's like trying to choose one of your kids.

You know, one thing about the De Aza move was that they managed to keep it completely under wraps until it happened. So there is that.

Big, BIG HR in that Washington series in September.

This article: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/the-mets-and-the-cubs-aren-t-underdogs And this one: http://www.amazinavenue.com/2015/3/30/8288295/new-york-mets-wilpon-madoff Provide some more insight. Basically, the Wilpons lost a shit ton of money in Madoff. Estimates say $500 million. This caused them to take out additional loans. The loans (originally $430 million) were leveraged against the Mets and SNY. Why are the Mets losing money? Because the owners borrowed a shit ton of money, used it to cover their own losses, and now the Mets have to cover those interest payments. If what is in these articles is correct, it goes a long way to explaining why a New York team cannot afford to be competitive.

Gwreck wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I would like to hear from the Nay-sayers. I voted "dislike." 1. I wanted Niese to be the fifth starter this year, not Colon. Niese is substantially younger, and brings more left-right balance to the rotation. 2. Nobody knows if Zack Wheeler is going to step right into the rotation and be a great pitcher after Tommy John surgery. Plus, I'm sure there will be a need to limit innings at least for Matz and Syndergaard. Niese has value for the entire 2016 season. 3. Niese has a team-friendly contract not just for 2016 but also for 2017 and 2018. He would have been just as tradeable after 2016, and after the Mets had a better idea of what they are going to get from Wheeler. 4. I wanted the Mets to acquire players this offseason without having to give up valuable assets. Neil Walker would have been a fine acquisition after the 2016 season when all he would have cost would have been money. Instead, he's cost 3 seasons of control of Jonathan Niese at a reasonable price. 5. I generally disapprove of the moves the Mets have made this offseason. The failure to adequately upgrade the offense is inexcusable, in my opinion. I suppose one could suggest that in a vacuum, the Walker trade is fine. As part of the larger plan, not so much. All fair points.

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, I know. But I'm not being unreasonable any more than I'm gloating. It's like we're speaking different languages. He in no way suggested that he's taking money from the team to cover his personal debts. Concluding that he said this is what is unreasonable. And that, among any number of reasons from that article alone, is why this writer you support, despite your better sensibilities, is without credibility. How pointing out that one line, which is so obviously and flagrantly baseless, can lead to this much parsing, is beyond me. I'm glad I didn't bother with the rest of his article but I wish I hadn't bothered responding at all. I don't think you're being unreasonable. I think we just view our respective takeaways as not reasonable. It happens. We should blame Wilpon for being vague and Martino for not following up for clarification. And like I said, I get what you are saying about Megdal. I think you could have easily cited to the Ponzi scheme characterization, for which there really is no defense. But for now, he is helping to rally against the Wilpons, and anyone who does that these days is ok in my book! And, your criticisms of him aside, he does get a lot of things right in his articles.

I'm measuring OPS. http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/league/nl/sort/OPS/order/true First in the NL Pre all star. Last post all-star. 9th overall. The all-star break as a delineation is admittedly not perfect, but you get the idea.

Edgy MD wrote: It's probably best to not measure a team's offense against all of MLB, but only against the 15 teams in their league, as the DH advantage that the American League teams has leaves you, if not exactly comparing apples to oranges, perhaps comparing tangerines to clementines. Ok. Then it's still first and last, but then 9th out of 15 overall.

Then we disagree. I don't think that is a reasonable reading of Fred's words. If that were the case, the answer to the Madoff question would have been an unequivocal no, rather than the watery "balance" answer that he offered.

I'm cross-posting here with Bucket and am repeating some stuff, but a couple of things here rather than just erasing it all: - the Cubs signed Heyward with the intention of playing him everyday in CF (they let Dexter Fowler walk) and top shelf FAs who have their choice of where to go tend generally to pick spots where their role is well-defined. - Nor were the Mets going to say to Granderson: 'Hey you were our best (full time) offensive player last year and so we're going to reward you by cutting out 1/3 of your playing time'. It's why I said, back when this topic first started, that if they were going to go after Heyward (or Upton) it was going to be as a replacement for one of their OFs not as an addition to the incumbents, and when you've got two OFs already in the midst of long-term deals plus one promising rookie that track is not always so easy. It's nice that you (CF) recognize that you're willing to deal Granderson but, as JCL says, that was definitely NOT the vibe during most of the Heyward discussions. - of course no one knows what we'll get out of Wright + d'Arnaud + Conforto but I think it would be safe to bet the 'Over' on the 565 combined ABs from 2015. Conservatively they'll double that; ideally come close to tripling it; and it would take several simultaneous disasters not to at least surpass it - yes they need to replace what they got from Cespedes but it's not like he was the full-season cleanup hitter - he was here for 1/3 of the season and was 10th on the team in ABs - as Billy/Brad Bean/Pitt said about losing Giambi: 'we can't replace him directly so we need to replace him in the aggregate' As always you are free to disagree with that strategy and/or exchange the word "can't" with "choose not to because we're parasitic vultures whose purpose is to rip you off while lining our pockets", but it's the road they're opting to take and I think folks need to at least accept that it is A strategy and that not every loss needs to be answered by a player who most closely resembles the guy being replaced. I get what you are saying. I think our discussion needs some clarification. In 2015, from Opening Day to the trade deadline, the Mets were last in offense. From the trade deadline on, they were first. Overall, they ended up 20th in the league in OPS. More production from Conforto, Wright and d'Arnaud, and all of the other additions this winter, will help move the Mets up from 20th overall. Probably to somewhere in the middle of the pack. I get this, and I do see how the "spread it around" moves, coupled with expected increases in production from these three will help accomplish that. But that's not what I wanted. If the second half team came back intact, they might not have stayed in first in offense over the course of a season. Would they have have been top 5? I think so. And so this Winter, I wanted the Mets to either improve upon this, or at least replicate it. Put out a top 5 offense. Maybe even the best offense. With a payroll commensurate with the market, this is a piece of cake. If they are stuck within current constraints, it's harder, but I felt, it was still possible. That's why I'm disappointed.

Oh, I see what you were getting at. I should have used past tense. How I read Fred's words: So, we had a ton of debt, and so yeah, we used some Mets money for a few years, but we're all good now. No debt at all. How you read Fred's words: So, yeah, we had a ton of debt. So we couldn't afford to supplement these money-losing Mets for a couple of years. But we're all good now. No debt. Is that about right?

“There is no one in my family — the Katz family, Wilpon family, kids, whatever — there is no one who has any personal bank debt. Zero. Everything has been paid. No one owes a dollar to anybody.” A statement that I believe was intended to be misleading. Intended effect: Hey, look, we are debt free! Actual meaning: It's all non-recourse financing. (Meaning the debt is not in the name of the individuals, but in the different Sterling entities) You don't actually believe that the Wilpon business have no debt do you?

No need to change it. This was our lineup: 1. Granderson 2. Wright 3. Murphy 4. Cespedes 5. Duda 6. d'Arnaud 7. Conforto 8. Flores 9. Pitcher It was a terrific lineup. Since then, we lost Murphy and replaced him with Walker. I consider that more or less a wash. Cespedes is gone too. But nothing has been done to offset this. We lost our cleanup hitter and have not replaced that production. Conforto, d'Arnaud and Wright, no matter how much they play, cannot offset that loss, as they are already in the lineup.

But that's not what he said. He said: “I think there is a balance there. It wasn’t, as people have written, the reason. There was a balance there because we had to make sure that the banks got paid off all of the debt." Thank you. I assure you that you don't have to keep bolding things for me. I could read it 100 times. "the banks got paid off all of the debt" does not, by definition, equal "I've used/I'm using Mets revenues to cover my personal debt." It would be astounding for him to admit such a thing. It would put his head in a noose. But we're in tortured reading territory here. it's just one absurd thing in his absurd article. Why are you willing to torture it to convince yourself it's credible? You follow his mania, that everything said against Wilpon, no matter the basis, must be true, because Wilpon, you'll find that you're sailing with Ahab. I understand now. Gotcha. So Wilpon was saying that because he has all this personal debt, he cannot supplement the Mets, who were losing money during this time. That works too. I, personally, did not read it that way, but as you said, I may have been biased by the characterization asserted to it by Megdal. I don't think you have to stretch to read my way though. And more importantly, I get your larger point about Megdal. The whole comparison to a Ponzi scheme is weak, and meant to be intentionally inciteful. But he also speaks a lot of truth about ownership, and the predicament we are in. And I want to support those who criticize the Wilpons.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I would like to hear from the Nay-sayers. I voted "like" too but I'm sorta from Missouri on Walker overall. I like it inasmuch as its relatively easy to move on from if it doesn't work out, but hard to imagine Walker is anything more than the Jon Niese of second base. And if they move on, they get a draft pick!

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm not sure the top free agent on the market signs up for a situation where he's asked to play a different position every day, at least when weighing it against a counter offer to play just one. That was also an issue said to have impacted the Zobrist dealings. But never once mentioned during the Heyward negotiations. Moreover, it's not a different position every day. It's either RF or CF. The same two positions that are in play for the Cubs, depending on what they do the rest of the way. Heyward has said that the biggest factor behind his choice was the Cubs base of young players, and how he felt they were in a better position going forward than the Mets. You know, the Mets have a pretty good core too. Maybe he would have been enticed by four aces. We will never know. Because unlike the Cards and Nats, the Mets never even tried. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think the only way for the Mets to have been a serious player for Heyward or Cespedes was to have also committed to trading one of their own outfielders, but none of the Heyward-blowers have advanced that theory. Because not a single source has ever suggested that this was a factor. But if it were, I'd be down with trading Granderson. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Also, CF, need you be reminded (again) that Conforto+dArnaud+ Wright on full seasons, not to mention a likely power upgrade at SS would indeed go a long way toward "replacing" the production of 1 player. Can you count on all that happening? Maybe not, but Shirley you must see there's been a conscious effort to spread the production around. First off, what Vic said above. Secondly, Conforto, d'Arnaud and Wright were all healthy and contributing after August 1, along with Cespedes. My goal was to improve upon, or at least replicate, that production next year. And so contributions by a those three work to the break-even point. They are not improvements. I've said many times, the Mets should have been looking to improve upon the Second Half Mets. If your goal is, like the Mets, to disregard the Second Half Mets, and only aim to be better than the First Half Mets, then sure. Those three will help. But in doing so, you are conceding that you are ok with taking a step back from the team that left the field in October.

Anyway, the larger point is that Megdal, Harper, Calceterra, Rosenthal, are all calling out the Wilpons for their inability (or unwillingness) to spend. They join Michael Powell, Kevin Kernan, and others who started calling them out last week. I view this as a good thing. The biggest obstacle the Mets have to winning it all is not the offense, or the bullpen. It's the owners. And it will continue to be so. Megdal, imperfect as he may be (and I don't agree with the bad Ponzi scheme comparison), is an agent of good for us right now. He is painting a picture of the Wilpons that may force them to act differently, or perhaps force MLB to get involved. Which would be a freakin' home run for us. And if it does nothing but shame the Wilpons further, than so be it. They are actively contributing to my misery. If something helps make them miserable (and doesn't hurt the Mets) then I'll gladly rally around it.

You really think there's a single admission in there that he has withdrawn money from the Mets organization to pay off personal debt? Personal as in Fred Wilpon? I don't know. Personal as in Wilpon Family/Sterling Equities? I think so. This was the party line about Madoff before: Jeff Wilpon in 2008: "The individual partners lost some money at Madoff. But it doesn't affect the Mets. It doesn't affect the Citi Field project. It doesn't affect (team-owned television network) SNY or any of our operating businesses. How is that possible? We have other money. Just because you guys don't know how much money we have, we have other money and other funds outside of (the Mets). It's called diversification." If that were actually the case, when asked about Madoff, you'd expect Fred to answer similarly. You heard what Jeff said. Madoff has nothing to do with the Mets. It was not a factor. Zero. The Mets payroll is completely independent of our other holdings. But that's not what he said. He said: “I think there is a balance there. It wasn’t, as people have written, the reason. There was a balance there because we had to make sure that the banks got paid off all of the debt." Sounds like an admission to me. And I think it is reasonable for Megdal, or anyone else, to think so.

Edgy MD wrote: I'll just go with, "Fred Wilpon, in what was his most recent press conference back in February 2013, happily acknowledged having diverted revenue toward both corporate and family debt." The article he links to says nothing of the sort. Even under the most tortured reading, it's just not there. You have to be religiously committed to that conclusion to glean it from that article. I don't know Edgy. I think Andy Martino in that article is suggesting that this was the case. Wilpon also provided a new explanation for the Mets’ austerity over the past several years, saying that the payroll contracted as ownership paid down debt. “That’s what made us tight,” Wilpon, 76, said. “We were still getting revenues, lots of revenues, but those revenues were going to pay off debt. That’s done.” More. Given all those factors, Wilpon was asked, was Madoff even the primary reason for the trimming of payroll? “I think there is a balance there,” he said. “It wasn’t, as people have written, the reason. There was a balance there because we had to make sure that the banks got paid off all of the debt. I mean, that's as close to an admission as you are going to get no? I don't think he was "happily acknowledging" it as Megdal writes, but I think that Megdal's conclusion is a fairly reasonable one.

Kansas City: I don't think Kansas City lost as much as we did this year. As you cite, they lost two guys right around .700 in OPS. We lost our cleanup hitter and have not replaced that production. Plus, Kansas City right now has stretched their payroll as far as it can go. With their small market, they are traditionally near the bottom of the league. Recognizing their window, they pushed (albeit barely) into the top half last year. One slot ahead of the Mets. Sucks to play in a small market. But I don't think you can blame the owners. (At least not now anyway). Heyward: I don't remember anyone realistically suggesting that Heyward would come here to platoon with Lagares. If so, that is a silly idea. If Heyward were signed, he would play every day. Against RH pitchers, Heyward would play center and Granderson would play RF. Against lefties, Lagares would play CF, and Heyward would play RF. Lagares needs a platoon partner. So does Granderson. That is why Heyward fit so perfectly. The innings Heyward would have taken, would have been about 2/3 Lagares, 1/3 Granderson. So yes, there would be a defensive upgrade. And even if you are just looking at offense alone, Heyward represents a 150 point improvement in OPS over Lagares. Yeah, I'll take that.

Edgy MD wrote: What's to clarify? He has an agenda and he pretends his opinions are facts that he's uncovered when they aren't. I'm embarrassed. It's middle school garbage. And he's winning. For all the wrong reasons. We've been down this road enough. It usually goes bad around here. What specifically do you think he's trying to pass off as fact that is not true?

Ken Rosenthal joins the party: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ken-rosenthal-new-york-mets-not-spending-offseason-money-like-world-series-contender-122215 The Mets’ commitments for 2016 are about $100.5 million for 16 players, including arbitration projections from MLBTradeRumors.com. Nine others -- including starting pitchers Jacob de Grom, Noah Syndergaard and Steven Matz, catcher Travis d’Arnaud and left fielder Michael Conforto -- figure to be at the $507,500 minimum salary or slightly above it. So, while general manager Sandy Alderson said recently that the payroll will be at “a higher level,” the best guess at the moment is not much higher. Hey look! He's playing coked up accountant!

This is the toughest call. And one that is the most dependent on other moves. I went with dislike, because I thought the Mets had much more pressing needs. Take Colon money, Cabrera money and De Aza money and suddenly you have enough for an impact player. Plus Bart was not really that good looking at the numbers. So you figure Montero, or Verret, or Gsellman might be able to get you similar production. But I think they will likely need at least 2 or 3 additional starter, in addition to the big 4. So I get the need for Colon. Good mentor for the kids. Lots of fun to watch. And had they made the moves they should have made, I would have welcomed Bart back. But they didn't. So slight dislike.

Dislike. Resources could have and should have been allocated toward much bigger needs.

I like this deal too. Not nearly as much as the Walker deal, but still a net gain, I think. Seems like a bit much to pay, but I guess that's the market.