Centerfield

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Moreover their strategy varied from one year to to the next, as did their seeming level of commitment to whatever philosophy they were behind.... Mets went from a "baseball man" GM (Hunsicker) to an accountant (Harazin) to a scouting-based rebuild (McIlvaine) to Steve Phillips and his cellphone to a wannabe moneyballer (Duquette) back to a scouting guy (Minaya)...The Mets either loved free agents or hated them. They sometimes coveted their prospects and other times used them as currency. I always assumed then that this back and forth in terms of philosophy was a result of two co-owners with different philosophies, who hated each other. One would win over, and they would follow the plan for a while, and then when it failed, the other had the ammo he needed to push his agenda. Now that they have had sole control for a while, it's pretty clear that this is just the Wilpon way. Back on the old board, Ms. Met used to be sold on some crazy theories, but one thing she nailed was her assessment of the Wilpons. Regarding payroll, you're correct. It's always been one excuse after another. TV contract is bad. We need to get out of it. TV contract is better, but man, if only we had our own network like the Yankees. Sure, SNY is nice, but our Stadium is old and outdated. We need a new one with more luxury boxes. This new stadium sure is expensive! We are rebuilding around young pitching. We will spend once they are ready. Attendance is so low. Come out to the games and we will spend more! Promise! Those pitchers we have will be expensive in 5 years. We need to save money to retain them! One thing I disagree about is the Wilpons being immune to public pressure. I think they are image conscious enough that if there is pressure to spend, they will do it. But as long as they can sell the idea of being "cost-conscious" and demonize "over spending", they will continue to spend as little as possible. I agree that the Wilpons care less about actual success, as much as they care about trying to make it seem like they are trying to succeed.

Frayed Knot wrote: "Thanks for the early Christmas present! I couldn't be happier to return to the Mets" - tweets the lefty And in doing so, is rumored to have broken his thumb.

Good against lefties. Post says $4 million. More than I would have guessed, but I guess relievers be expensive these days. Good move.

You'd think someone would give him a multi-year deal no? Zobrist had multiple 4 year deals and he's 35. I'd love if we could land Cespedes on a 4 year deal, team option for 5th year with a buyout. Opt out after 2 years. I understand the reservations about his walk rate, how he will age, etc. Think I would still prefer to sign Upton and let Granderson fake it in CF for 2 years.

Mitigating Factors: 1. First 3 division titles were in the NL West. 2. Wilpons were co-owners during most of that time 3. There were 3 other teams in the NL East during that time 4. They did have 3 HOF pitchers and a HOF 3rd baseman. I wonder though, if Atlanta would have been able to hold that team together in today's market. Those pitchers are all $30 million/year. Chipper is worth $20 easy. That's $110 million on 4 players.

He stands on them. Like literally on them. Boot on their head, pinning their face to the ground. Yelling "This is America dammit!"

Edgy MD wrote: Was I right or was I right? Pete Rose is now the shafted hardworking white guy who earned every penny he got, having now been shoved aside by thugs and freeloaders who want everything handed to them (or they'll just take it). I'm not saying what color these people are but look for yourself. If we armed Pete and let him guard our country's borders, we'd all be much safer and richer.

Frayed Knot wrote: Oh Pete certainly still has both supporters and detractors with entrenched opinions on either side. It never occurred to me how, or even if, those camps might be split along political lines and I'm not sure I'd care to dig into it in order to try and find out. My only point was that the non-baseball portion of the sports media in this country seems to treat the Rose question -- particularly the HoF part -- as if it's the most pressing issue facing baseball today. It's the one they most want to grill Manfred on when given a chance (sometimes to the exclusion of anything else). Those more within the game, on the other hand, have other topics to occupy their thoughts which push Pete's status further down the list of priorities. I never thought about it this way, but I think you are right. I suspect it's because 1. Everyone knows about Pete Rose. So they can be lazy. 2. It sounds like a more important "moral" issue 3. They don't know even know what qualifying offers are. Much less ask an intelligent question about them. And most of them have no idea that Pete voluntarily signed a lifetime ban in the beginning.

Edgy MD wrote: Brandon will take it right soon enough. But I'm all for putting short-timers in the way of prospects instead of handing them jobs. Met prospects who will surely debut in 2015: Nimmo, Reynolds, Cecchini, Walters, Smoker. Agreed on this as well. But Parra is said to be seeking a 3 year deal around $30 million.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I sometimes wonder if the Nieuwenhuis role wouldn't be better served by Nieuwenhuis. Or Brandon Zimmo. Exactly. In the second half of last year, Kirk out-OPS'ed him by over 100 points. Look, Parra is an ok player. But his best asset is that he has a little bit of power. And I don't know how well that would translate from his bandboxes to CitiField. If he better than Kirk? Yes. Definitely. But is the marginal upgrade worth the salary? I don't think so. Like the Cabrera signing, Parra improves the team in a vacuum, in that both are better than our incumbents. But when you factor in their salary, this type of move seems like "spending for the sake of spending". If you sign Parra for the rumored $10 million, and throw in Cabrera's $9 million, that is $19 million dollars that the Mets are spending on marginal upgrades.

Wow, those PR guys do a great job. Here is the original source material, before edits: Rob Manfred wrote: Fuck Pete Rose. He's a fucking dick. [stands up and mimics coitus motion] And fuck the Hall of Fame too. They're as much a shitshow as Pete.

I agree wholeheartedly with Edgy's wholehearted agreement. Lacking a mature understanding of his wrongful conduct is a great way to describe Pete Rose. I'm immature too. I would have sent Buddy Harrelson to hand deliver the rejection letter.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Centerfield wrote: The problem is, I have yet to see anyone accomplish this. The Atlanta Braves had a long stretch where this plan was working for them. What was it, twelve straight division titles? You're right! How soon I forget. 14 straight titles. I take it back. Win every year!

That being said, Chuck's post raises the question on the "proper" way to run a baseball team. Contend every year? Or contend in spurts, with short rebuilding years between? Ideally, if you run your organization well, you can contend every year. Talent that is lost is replenished through a strong focus on scouting and development. Contracts expire allowing money to be re-invested in new talent. A team makes a run at the post-season year after year. The problem is, I have yet to see anyone accomplish this. In my opinion, down years and rebuilding are inevitable. You build your base. When they arrive, and hopefully fulfill their promise, you open up the books, surround them with elite talent, and give yourself a five year window of contention. And during that time you go for it. The idea, after all, is to win championships. As that core ages or becomes too expensive, you sell off pieces, rebuild, restock, and hope that your next 5 year window is only a season or two away. And I think having top tier resources helps, whichever model you may be pursuing.

RealityChuck wrote: The thing is, Sandy is playing a long game: He's thinking years down the road. David Wright's contract is going to be an issue in a few years, and signing Cespedes for seven years will only add more problems. He's also going to have to pay at least some of the starters (I've seen analyses that say that keeping all five would be around $100 million a year). A long-term contract for Cespedes would mean they couldn't afford a younger Jacob DeGrom (Harvey will be gone one he hits FA; Scott Boras will make sure of that). The team wants to continue to contend, not just contend next year. David Wright's contract will expire in five years. The same year that deGrom becomes available for free agency. It will have no impact on the ability to keep deGrom, Syndegaard or Matz. Same thing for Cespedes if you can get him to sign for five (BTW, he is looking for a 6 year deal, I would not advise giving him an extra year just for the hell of it.) Heyward, had we gone that route, would have opted out several years prior. We can agree to disagree on this, but I think you spend the money now, when you have a legitimate chance to win the World Series. I would not "save" it for 5 years down the line when we have no idea what these pitchers and the rest of the team will look like. If the Mets cannot afford a top tier payroll now, what makes you think they can afford one then? And if you keep all these pitchers, who will hit for that team?

So the Mets certainly have the ability to acquire the offensive power they need through either a trade or free agency. But signing an expensive free agent to a long-term deal before knowing if he is truly needed� or unloading young players in trades before they have reached their maximum trade value�is not the right way to go about building a team that can be a World Series contender in coming years. This makes a lot of sense. In the coming years, this team can become a real World Series contender. Let's wait until then.

Ceetar wrote: Centerfield wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Edgy MD wrote: the Wilpons are just way too emotionally involved in the perception of the club as a brand. This is absolutely true. Which is why it makes no sense that they would sit back and allow themselves to be raked over the coals over not spending. They certainly have room in their budget to get a big name outfielder if they wanted one. Which makes me wonder about your "lender-restriction" theory. I really wonder if the Wilpons agreed to some "no contract more than 4 years" type of clause. It would explain their absolute fawning over 35 year old Zobrist but their complete disregard of 26 year old Heyward. Seems like there are times when it would've been the Mets MO to give stupid money to decent-hitting Heyward to prove that they could. Oh. Never mind. All good.

Ceetar wrote: Mostly bleh and I'd be surprised if the Mets actually signed him for more than peanuts and gave him anything more than the Kirk role. Holy crap. We agree on something. Something must be wrong. WTF is going on.

His Gold Gloves were in the corner OF spots. And as Edgy mentions, his defense has fallen off. No underselling here. None needed. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/seeking-clarity-on-gerardo-parras-defense/ To summarize: He might not be as much of a liability as last year�s numbers suggest, but we�re now 2,000 innings removed from his Gold Glove 2013 season, and everything seems to be trending the wrong way. It would be fair to assume that Parra is now something like a league-average defensive corner outfielder, which matches his 2016 Steamer projection exactly. But an average corner outfielder isn�t the same as an average center fielder. Parra is a fine, cost-effective option in a corner moving forward, but if you�re a team in need of a center fielder and you prioritize defense, you may want to look beyond Gerardo Parra.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What? You thought they'd spend more because they said they would? Yes. I thought they would. I thought that once the pitchers arrived and the Mets had a strong young talent base, then they would open things up, surround them with elite talent and go for it.

Frayed Knot wrote: Centerfield wrote: They certainly have room in their budget to get a big name outfielder if they wanted one. And how is it that we know this? Because they are at $90 million now. Without the Cabrera signing they would be at $81 million. Even if you added Heyward's $23 million, you're still only at $103 million. Which is what the payroll was to begin 2015.

Hot, hot rumors connect him with the Mets. Parra basically sucks. .730 career OPS. He has played his entire career in hitter-friendly parks (Arizona, Milwaukee, Baltimore). Had a great first half in 2015, but then after getting traded to Baltimore, remembered that he sucked and tanked. Not a full-time centerfielder, not a great defender. But lots of positives too: 1. bats left-handed 2. will steal about 10 bases a year. 3. Projections before the season had him getting a 3 year deal around $10 million per. Sounds perfect. Once we get him, the Asdrubal Cabrera signing will look great in comparison!

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Edgy MD wrote: the Wilpons are just way too emotionally involved in the perception of the club as a brand. This is absolutely true. Which is why it makes no sense that they would sit back and allow themselves to be raked over the coals over not spending. They certainly have room in their budget to get a big name outfielder if they wanted one. Which makes me wonder about your "lender-restriction" theory. I really wonder if the Wilpons agreed to some "no contract more than 4 years" type of clause. It would explain their absolute fawning over 35 year old Zobrist but their complete disregard of 26 year old Heyward.

MFS62 wrote: Matt Cerrone has a way to spend the money - on 5 players: https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/id-rather-five-players-instead-of-one/159603996 After Michael Cuddyer's retirement frees up significant payroll for the Mets, I think they should still pass on Yoenis Cespedes and instead go after Denard Span or Gerardo Parra, among other players, to round out the roster. Right now, assuming the Mets are paying something this season to Cuddyer, while deferring the rest, Sandy Alderson has roughly $20-25 million left to spend on his Opening Day roster. The choice shouldn't be about spending or not spending; it's about spending on the right needs. The more I look at it, spending every dollar of the team's remaining budget on one player is not the best way to go. Obviously, I loved the Cespedes we saw in August. He was amazing. But that level production was uncharacteristic and unsustainable, and I refuse to let it impact how I think he'll perform the next three years, let alone six, which is what he's asking for. Yes, he had a red-hot eight weeks, but they were unlike any other stretch during his four-year career. Instead, during the course of a full season, I expect he'll be the player he was during the other 88 weeks of his career, which is a .260 hitter with 25 home runs and a low on-base percentage. While he's an amazing left fielder, he's a bad center fielder, which is where he would have to play the next two seasons. Curtis Granderson has experience in center field, but he may be as bad there -- or worse -- as Cespedes. And, Cespedes has never played right field. In either scenario, center field becomes a defensive liability. In the end, I just don't see Cespedes as a good fit for Alderson's overall roster. Instead of Cespedes, the Mets should utilize those resources on Span, Bartolo Colon, free-agent 1B-OF Ryan Rayburn and left-handed relievers Jerry Blevins and Antonio Bastardo. These five players will cost as much as one season of Cespedes. However, it fills all of the team's remaining needs. Plus, Span gives the Mets a speedy, left-handed leadoff hitter, which pushes Granderson's 26 home runs back to the heart of the batting order. In Span, Neil Walker, Michael Conforto, David Wright, Granderson, Lucas Duda, Asdrubal Cabrera and Travis d'Arnaud, the Mets have seven players capable of hitting at least 15 home runs a season and one capable of stealing 30 bases. Pair this lineup with their rotation, bullpen and bench, and the Mets have a strong, versatile, well-rounded roster that is more than capable of defending the NL East. Later Anyone seriously advocating money to Bartolo and middle relievers instead of offense really loses credibility in my mind. The thing about Span, how do you know he's not hurt? He just had hip surgery. I get that he might be a low risk guy in terms of money, but if he's useless next year, we still have no centerfielder.

Yeah, that is a real tough question. Do you sell high on Granderson? You'd think you could find a taker for him and the remaining 2 years on his contract if you had to. He put up better numbers last year than Upton, who is going to cost a fortune. Granderson had a great season in 2015, but is that the outlier? I scoffed at the idea, but maybe reuniting him with his hitting coach really did make a difference.