Centerfield

Denard Span will work out for teams in Tampa after the new year. Boras says this will prove his client's health. I think this makes sense. I had reservations about giving a multi-year deal to a speed guy on the wrong side of 30 coming off of hip surgery. But if he can hit off a tee and shag some fly balls, then I say let's go for it!

I think they will add at least one more hitter, likely 2, and will add one more reliever. I don't think they will add any hitter that I want though. I think they are already better than they were going into last spring. Conforto is better than Cuddyer. Walker and Murphy are just about a wash. Cabrera is (though marginal) an improvement over Tejada/Flores. I think they will be a good team. And will be favorites to win the NL East. The thing is, the Mets had an opportunity this year to be great. They could have been great for the next many years. And they could have done it by raising payroll, or even just spending differently. But they punted on great. They played it safe and went for "good enough" instead. Get used to it guys. What you see now is as good as it's ever going to get.

Ceetar wrote: bmfc1 wrote: Brandon Phillips to WSH. He'll have more opportunities to extend his Citi Field hitting streak. I like this move....for the Mets. Why do you say that?

Edgy MD wrote: I didn't and don't "gloat." For Christ's sake. I'm going to go stand in traffic. Ok. Fine. You weren't gloating. It seemed like you were gloating. And I still don't know what you feel was "reinforced". We disagreed whether the trade was in place or not, and in the end, it was not in place. The word I would have chosen would be "refuted". And if you didn't want to discuss such an insignificant point, I don't see why you would raise the issue more than a week later. But I do agree with you that we've exhausted everything to be said on this topic. Move over. Let me have some traffic.

That's weak. There is no lawyering going on anywhere. It's a simple point. I said the Mets should have negotiated the Walker trade first. Both you and Chuck said that you thought the Mets did just that. Chuck's language accused me of "ignoring the evidence". Martino's article states that they absolutely did not have the Walker deal in place. But you and Chuck started dancing around as if the article vindicates you in some way. It's not a "tenuous point". There are no "obscuring volume of assertions". There's just one, simple point. Did they have the Walker trade in place or not? No. They didn't. I was right. You two were wrong. Despite being wrong, you patted each other on the back pretending that was the position you took all along. I'm supposed to just watch that idiotic shift in position and just pretend you were right? And please don't play victim with me. I'm sorry if I exhaust you. Let's be clear what happened. 1. I was critical of the Mets. Not anyone here. Not you. Not Chuck. I said they should have had the Walker deal in place. 2. You and Chuck were critical of me. You both asserted that the Walker deal was or might well have been in place. 3. TURNS OUT I WAS FUCKING RIGHT. At this point, you had the option to: 1. Acknowledge your mistake. Say "Hey CF, I guess you were right all along." 2. Say nothing at all. 3. Inexplicably gloat and pretend that's what you meant all along, even though this is a message board, and all of your words are right there in black and white. You chose to do #3. And after you criticized my point, ended up being wrong, and then gloated as if you were right anyway, you say "Geez, I wonder why this guy argues so inexhaustibly. Freakin' lawyers." Yup. Sounds about right.

Edgy MD wrote: No, I have not forgotten my position. Yeah? Then why gloat as if you were right, instead of saying "Looks like CF had it pegged after all." Hell. Or even not just saying anything at all?

Of course you do. There's no ambiguity whatsoever. Is it? Ok. Then I call bullshit. Let's recap. In the aftermath of the Walker Trade: The Pirates made Neil Walker available weeks ago. If he could be had for Jon Neise, why wasn't this option #1? And why wasn't this not even on the table during the Zobrist courtship? If nothing else, at least the Mets could have saved themselves the embarrassment of not having a Plan B after Zobrist fell through. It's hard to refute that the Zobrist situation was misplayed. I'm glad that it didn't happen, so no complaints from me. But if they really wanted Zobrist, I think the way to do it is to talk to Pittsburgh first, get the Niese deal floated, then put the contract in front of Zobrist last week, and say you've got to sign now, or we're pushing the button on the Pittsburgh deal. You might have even gotten him for 3 years then. It certainly beats fellating him in public the way they did. I don't know that the Niese/Walker trade hadn't been on the table as an option before the Zobrist offer didn't bear fruit. Before Zobrist turned them down, there were reports that the Mets were interested in Walker....So the claim that there was no plan are just ignoring the evidence. The Mets most likely told the Pirates, "we'll trade Niese for Walker if we don't get Zobrist." The rapidity in which they made the deal shows they had laid the groundwork prior to Zobrist's decision. And then later... Martino's Article Comes out: A few minutes later, most of the Mets’ front office staff has returned to the suite. A “what now?” vibe settles over them. “Hey,” says Ricciardi, a streetwise former infielder with a thick Massachusetts accent. “Let’s just get some dinner.” In recent weeks, in laying groundwork for possible alternatives to Zobrist, the Mets had engaged the Pittsburgh Pirates on second baseman Neil Walker, but never felt close to a deal. “Would you consider Walker for Niese?” Huntington asks Ricciardi, referring to Jonathon Niese, a 29-year-old lefthanded pitcher. Niese is solid but unspectacular, and has put off teammates by complaining about their defensive play. The decision to part with him is not difficult, Mets officials later admit privately...When Ricco ends his call, Ricciardi tells him about the offers. Ricco immediately likes it — veteran for veteran, no need to sacrifice a prospect. It makes sense, and the Mets decide to do it. A few minutes later, a team official who’d been away for a few hours returns to the suite and sees Walker’s name back on the whiteboard. “What’s that?” he says. “We’re getting him,” another official answers. Alderson gets on the phone from New York to close the deal with Huntington. By 2 p.m. the trade is done; the team announces it at 6:30. The text of which suggests that the Niese/Walker trade was most certainly NOT in place when the Zobrist offer was extended. Therefore, proving CF right, and Chuck/Edgy wrong. But oddly, high fives all around from Chuck and Edgy. Edgy MD: Makes clear that they were inquiring on Walker before Zobrist went to Chicago. Reality Chuck: As was reported at the time. Edgy MD: Indeed. But reinforcement helps. Have they forgotten the positions they took in the prior thread? It certainly seems like it. Edgy is even quoting passages from the article that work against his position. Centerfield responds with quotes from the original thread proving he was right. Centerfield ends up reinforcing his developing reputation as a CPF curmudgeon.

d'Kong76 wrote: Can we go back to this, it made me laugh out loud... You're right. The Mets had a solid Plan B. It read: 1. Look dejectedly at each other. 2. Go eat something. You laugh. At my office, that's our Plan A.

Zobrist is better That's why Walker wasn't option 1. Agreed. But it is foolish to compare the two players without having an idea of their relative costs. One is a four year commitment and lots of money. Another is a pitcher you don't really like anyway. Whether or not the official offer was 'on the table' during the negotiations doesn't really mean anything. I think it does. And that is the point I'm making. Explore all options, before making a decision. They had a billion plan Bs, but it's not like the Pirates were just sitting around waiting for the Mets to get or not get Zobrist. The Pirates saw a trade partner open up and stepped up the talks. It's unlikely this would've been done in mere hours if it wasn't already discussed to some extent. Take a look at the passage below: “Would you consider Walker for Niese?” Huntington asks Ricciardi, referring to Jonathon Niese, a 29-year-old lefthanded pitcher. Niese is solid but unspectacular, and has put off teammates by complaining about their defensive play. The decision to part with him is not difficult, Mets officials later admit privately...When Ricco ends his call, Ricciardi tells him about the offers. Ricco immediately likes it — veteran for veteran, no need to sacrifice a prospect. It makes sense, and the Mets decide to do it. A few minutes later, a team official who’d been away for a few hours returns to the suite and sees Walker’s name back on the whiteboard. “What’s that?” he says. “We’re getting him,” another official answers. Alderson gets on the phone from New York to close the deal with Huntington. By 2 p.m. the trade is done; the team announces it at 6:30. I don't think one can read that and reasonably conclude that the parameters of the deal had already been in place.

I guess my point is not clear. After the Zobrist/Walker trade, I said: The Pirates made Neil Walker available weeks ago. If he could be had for Jon Neise, why wasn't this option #1? And why wasn't this not even on the table during the Zobrist courtship? If nothing else, at least the Mets could have saved themselves the embarrassment of not having a Plan B after Zobrist fell through. We now know the answer to the first question. Walker for Niese was not option 1 because no one knew this trade could be made until the day after Zobrist signed with the Cubs. As to the second question, "why was this not even on the table during the Zobrist courtship?", we are still not sure. We know that initial overtures were made, and we know that he was on the whiteboard. But we don't know why no one on the Mets knew he could be had for Niese. As I said above, it could be because Pittsburgh dropped their price. In which case I have no problem with what the Mets did. But I don't think this is likely. I think it is because they never really aggressively pursued this option. In which case, I do have a problem with what they did, and my implied criticism remains. When making a determination as to how to fill the whole at second base, I think a club should fully research all available options, and then make a decision. If they did not know that they could get Walker for only Niese when they made a four year offer to Zobrist, I view this as a failure in judgement. As I've said many times here, there is a difference between making the right decision through sound judgment, and happening to fall into the right decision by luck. To answer this question, there have been two theories suggested. JCL says the Mets might have had to be delicate with Walker while pursuing Zobrist. I have never heard of this before. I don't know why a club cannot pursue two viable options independently, and I don't know why they have to be sensitive about this, other than the general principle that a club should not broadcast anything they are doing anyway. But at least it's a theory, and I can't say this is not true. We can, without a doubt, dismiss Chuck's hypothesis: RealityChuck wrote: The people who said is was Zobrist or nothing were just plain wrong. Before Zobrist turned them down, there were reports that the Mets were interested in Walker....So the claim that there was no plan are just ignoring the evidence. The Mets most likely told the Pirates, "we'll trade Niese for Walker if we don't get Zobrist." The rapidity in which they made the deal shows they had laid the groundwork prior to Zobrist's decision. There is no question that this deal was not sitting as a backup during the Zobrist talks. I admit feeling irritation that there is an "I told you so" post here, when the text of the article clearly proves just the opposite.

I quoted the same passage. Not seeing your intent here. Cliff's Notes were for JCL.

Cliff's Notes Version: CF: Love the Walker trade. Why wouldn't they make this Plan A, or at least pursue at the same time? Chuck: You are ignoring evidence. Of course the Walker/Niese deal was in place all along. Look how fast it happened. Martino: The Walker trade was proposed by Pittsburgh in mid-morning the day after, and was done by 2 p.m. Chuck: See? Told you.

Ceetar wrote: Their plan B was "Get a different player sometime before April that we think is good." Oh. Well in that case, I take it back. Clearly they had done a ton of fucking work. In fact, I found their list of rejected plan B's: [crossout]Get a different player sometime before April that we think is bad. Get a different player sometime before 2018. Get the same player. Should we just get Murphy?[/crossout]

that's all just semantics. To say the Mets "didn't have a plan B" is absurd. Walker was clearly on their whiteboard, which is far and above "discussions at the CPF". It's a list of guys they could potentially acquire to play for the Mets. They missed out on the top guy, went after another. How is that anything other than plan B? Because they didn't specifically rank them before hand? Of course the Pirates called. I bet they called the Nats and anyone else rumored to be in on Zobrist and looking for a 2B in general. You don't just drop the Mets a line cold and have the deal materialize like that. They had to know the Mets were willing to trade for Walker. I like how you pretend that this segment does not exist: A few minutes later, most of the Mets’ front office staff has returned to the suite. A “what now?” vibe settles over them. “Hey,” says Ricciardi, a streetwise former infielder with a thick Massachusetts accent. “Let’s just get some dinner.” You're right. The Mets had a solid Plan B. It read: 1. Look dejectedly at each other. 2. Go eat something. He was on their whiteboard? They were brainstorming ideas? Come on. This is all stuff we do here. Don't make me send you a picture of my whiteboard.

And just to refresh your recollection, this is what you wrote: RealityChuck wrote: The people who said is was Zobrist or nothing were just plain wrong. Before Zobrist turned them down, there were reports that the Mets were interested in Walker. December 7: http://www.amazinavenue.com/2015/12/7/9865356/mets-trade-rumors-neil-walker-pirates So the claim that there was no plan are just ignoring the evidence. The Mets most likely told the Pirates, "we'll trade Niese for Walker if we don't get Zobrist." The rapidity in which they made the deal shows they had laid the groundwork prior to Zobrist's decision. Oh, and Cabrera has the same agent as Zobrist. Wanna bet that signing wasn't discussed, too? It's funny that you read that Martino article and somehow think this vindicates your hypothesis, when in fact, it unequivocally shoots it down.

Makes clear that they were inquiring on Walker before Zobrist went to Chicago. As was reported at the time. Sure. Were they inquiring? Yes. But was there a substantive effort to acquire him before Zobrist? I don't know. I would guess no. And I realize it's possible we read different papers, but at the time, the widely reported story on the local rags, SNY and twitter was that the Mets had no real plan B. All the beat guys were on the same page with this. Martino himself said as much on the SNY segment that night. That feeling is also reflected in his article: A few minutes later, most of the Mets’ front office staff has returned to the suite. A “what now?” vibe settles over them. “Hey,” says Ricciardi, a streetwise former infielder with a thick Massachusetts accent. “Let’s just get some dinner.” When asked that night, Martino did not mention Walker. Because as of that evening, Walker was not realistically on their radar. The Walker situation, according to Martino was: In recent weeks, in laying groundwork for possible alternatives to Zobrist, the Mets had engaged the Pittsburgh Pirates on second baseman Neil Walker, but never felt close to a deal....Early in the meetings, Walker’s name was on the whiteboard, and the team brainstormed possible packages of prospects to offer the Pirates. Mets scout Roy Smith, who once worked for Pittsburgh and remains well-connected there, helped with the preliminary talks, but nothing seemed to fit. I don't think we'll ever know how aggressively the Mets pursued Walker, or if the Pirates demands were sky high leading up to the Winter Meetings, but it's clear that as the meetings started, Walker was just a name on a whiteboard, and the Mets were brainstorming possibilities. In other words, they were about as far along as we get here on the CPF. Meanwhile, the week before, they were playing real estate agent for Zobrist and his wife. But then the next morning, everything changed: Mid-morning on Wednesday, Ricco is on a conference call on his cell, when Pirates general manager Neal Huntington calls. It goes to voicemail, then Ricciardi’s phone rings. It’s Huntington. “Would you consider Walker for Niese?” Huntington asks Ricciardi, referring to Jonathon Niese, a 29-year-old lefthanded pitcher. Niese? Of course you take that. Did the Pirates demands drop? Was the possibility of Niese never raised by the Mets? Did they ever ask the Pirates, hey, what would you guys want for Walker? We don't know. But we do know that the Walker deal materialized the next day. In fact, it more or less fell into their laps. This is a much different scenario than: "We've got an offer out to Zobrist, but if he walks, we've got Huntington lined up ready to fire off the Walker trade." In the aftermath of the Zobrist/Walker situation, I wrote this: The Pirates made Neil Walker available weeks ago. If he could be had for Jon Neise, why wasn't this option #1? And why wasn't this not even on the table during the Zobrist courtship? If nothing else, at least the Mets could have saved themselves the embarrassment of not having a Plan B after Zobrist fell through. The answer might be: (a) The Mets tried. Before the Winter Meetings, they wanted Harvey. Or a package of prospects that included Dominic Smith and Dilson Herrera. After Zobrist went to the Cubs, they dropped their price to Niese. But I don't think this is likely. Why would Pittsburgh drop their price after we whiff on Zobrist? Which is why my guess is that this is what actually happened: ( The Mets knew Walker was available, but everyone knew that they were big on Zobrist. Conceptual talks were had. They did not pan out. Neither side really pursued it. The Mets missed out on Zobrist. Huntington said "You know, I wonder if they know that all we want back is Niese." Made the call. Deal happened fast. I think it is far more likely that the Mets did not actively pursue Walker, because they didn't really want him. I think it's likely that the Pirates knew that the Mets were not interested, and therefore made no effort to engage them. And only after the Mets were spurned, did the Pirates make the first move.

O Holy Shit Why is Harvey pitching?

Edgy MD: Where is this dick that I've been promised? You want dick? I give you dick. Everyone happy now?

When I hear this song in my head, it's the Muppets with John Denver.

On the first day of Metsmas The Metsies sent to me: Some memories of Dillon Gee On the second day of Metsmas The Metsies sent to me: Two shortstop's broken ankles And some memories of Dillon Gee On the third day of Metsmas The Metsies sent to me: Three wins 'gainst LA Two shortstop's broken ankles And some memories of Dillon Gee On the fourth day of Metsmas The Metsies sent to me: Four front-line Aces Three wins 'gainst LA Two shortstop's broken ankles And some memories of Dillon Gee On the fifth day of Metsmas The Metsies sent to me: ___________________________ Four front-line Aces Three wins 'gainst LA Two shortstop's broken ankles And some memories of Dillon Gee

Or something like that. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/derek-jeter-didn-underwear-line-gay-article-1.2466955

Too much for Bartolo. I like the guy and all, but there are better uses of money.

d'Kong76 wrote: while drinking fancy champagne while counting the dough! Did he report who opened the bottle for them?

Edgy MD wrote: I'd be happy to withdraw "greatly," but my point remains that he shouldn't constantly be held up as demonstrably the worst character in the Hall of Fame, or the worst in baseball history, which he almst always is when the question of inducting Rose or admitted juicers comes up. This strikes me as a great overstatement. I'm sure a lot of folks brandishing his name as baseball's ultimate pariah never heard of Hal Chase. Or even Cap Anson. Cobb was the best player in an ugly era, and so became a lightning rod for everything that was wrong with it. I'll also suggest John McGraw's hatefulness was probably overdrawn. People writing narratives need heroes and villains. But the stories have him killing up to three people (!) and the evidence just doesn't support that. That sounds like some great overstatement there, doesn't it? Measured against the standard of the time, I certainly have a hard time saying that he was worse than Roger Clemens � who has a demonstrably stronger rape rap hanging over his head, if you ask me. Point well taken about heros and villains. I think that journalism/storytelling during that era lended itself to hyperbole. Tangentially, I submit that "not any worse than Roger Clemens" is a pretty low bar. Let's also remember that Shoeless Joe refused to allow him to come play on Kevin Costner's field. I think that has to enter into the equation.

I think it's funny that d'Kong coined this thread title in jest, but in the end, it ends up being a great thread with lots of great input.