Centerfield

TransMonk wrote: Centerfield wrote: The payroll should be commensurate with industry standard for the market you play in. This is where you are going to bang your head against the wall every time. Should? Maybe. But payroll is set by the payee based on their business plan for making maximum profit on their investment. Championship optional. I'm not sure I understand your post. I think payroll is set by the payer, not the payee. In any case, the point I was trying to make is that larger market teams should be at the top of the list. You'd expect smaller market teams to round out the bottom.

More cool stuff about Neil Walker: 1. Has said he's happy to fill in at 3B when needed. Reports are that he can play the position. 2. He's a switch hitter. Much better from the left side. Which means he is a good candidate to platoon with Herrera. Overall Neil Walker is pretty good. His .769 OPS over the last 3 years is better than Zobrist. And at age 30, much more likely to sustain it. But if you platoon Walker, LH-hitting Walker has an .809 OPS over the last three years, and has hit 53 of his 55 HR's from that side.

Bonus from the Walker deal: NO ASDRUBAL CABRERA. Win!

metsmarathon wrote: I'm hoping that this move, which I love btw, paves the way for a Heyward signing. Also the Mets could get a pick out of walker if he walks at the end of the year. Yes, yes and yes.

TransMonk wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: No one here wants spending for sake of spending, nor being saddled with bad contracts. I don't get why people don't see they're still broke (or cheap). But where do you draw the line between broke or cheap and cost efficient? Just an honest question from a devil's advocate who mostly agrees with the "F the Wilpons" side. I never saw that as a line between the two since I view them as different concepts. Cheap/broke means you don't fund the team with the payroll it needs to compete. The payroll should be commensurate with industry standard for the market you play in. So, in other words, this is the actual money spent. Cost efficiency is the manner in which that money is spent. A low budget team can spend money foolishly. A top tier payroll can still be spent in a cost-efficient manner.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think considering the incompetent ownership, the lender-appointed management team has done a fantastic job managing this franchise, making the right decisions with the resources they have, changing course when necessary etc. Not every move has worked out but most big decisions have, and the goofs aren't killing us like they did under the previous moron to have run the team. Regarding 2010, taking it up the ass from the league when the best players you could afford were Shawn Marcum and Jon Rauch sucked but was part of the process of unraveling all the ridiculous and poorly thought out contracts Wilpon Okayed while they went broke. Oh, and I disagree with Batmags often but I think he's swell and a great member of our community. Funniest guy here some days, and that's saying something. Great summary. I can't tell if you're kidding or not, but do you think the management team really is lender appointed?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Since everyone else keeps restating their positions, I figure I'll do the same. I want the Wilpons gone. If they can't afford to run this team, they should sell to somebody who can. I think the front office is doing a very good job given the financial limitations they have, limitations that they should NOT have. I think that the Mets are in a great position with their abundance of inexpensive and talented starting pitchers and realize that this is a window that is going to get narrower and narrower over the next few years as Harvey, deGrom, Syndergaard, etc. reach arbitration and ultimately free agency. Because of this, the Mets should maximize this opportunity and add the players they need to make themselves an overwhelming force in the National League so that they can win another pennant or three and, ideally, a World Championship. I realize that there are budgetary reasons that may prevent them from doing this. I have reconciled myself to this. I don't like it. It's frustrating, but not infuriating. I'm going to keep watching and rooting but I'm not going to complain. My lack of complaint should not be interpreted as any kind of endorsement of the Wilpons, or that I'm satisfied with the status quo. It's simply because angst is futile and while I absolutely loved seeing the Mets in the playoffs and World Series, I remain aware that there are many other things in my life that are more important. BG is like me, except like, he's a grown up and shows maturity and self-restraint.

The best part of this move is that it doesn't cost them much money, if any. Which means they can still improve the OF, bullpen and bench. Good move. Nice recovery. Great call JCL.

Twitterverse has Niese for Walker rumors. I don't see how that makes a lot of sense. Salaries seem like a wash.

Edgy MD wrote: No, there's no truth in the notion that, if I happen to disagree with you about something, it's because, if I agree with you, it would be a tacit admission that batmagadan was right. He's right often enough. He's certainly not right about being a martyr for the truth. Ok. Fair. Pure speculation on my part. It seemed to me like some of those prior debates a bit heated.

Edgy MD wrote: Centerfield wrote: But people here are fighting me on this. And I wonder if this has something to do with you. This debate has been ongoing for years. People are entrenched in their positions. Agreeing with me, would essentially mean agreeing with you. And no one wants to do that. Please don't buy into the persecution complex. Pretty please. You don't think there's some truth to it? That you guys don't particularly care for him? I mean, I get it. He's agenda driven. Makes generalizations. Re-posts articles from a dislikeable author. Relentless. I mean, I more or less agree with him and I still don't like him.

Vic Sage wrote: CF and d'Kong, keep the flame alive! I wasn't happy with our lineup going into 2015, and it wasn't until Cespedes and Conforto joined the returning Wright and d'Arnaud (and Johnson and Uribe won games with the depth they provided) that they went from the worst offense to the best offense in baseball. And now Cespedes and Murphy (probably) are gone, and Wright and d'Arnaud still have ongoing injury concerns, and Cuddyer is washed up, and Lagares can't reallly hit, and Flores doesn't have any range (and just busted his ankle), and our big move to fix this was going to be Zobrist? I didn't think that would be enough. and now they don't even get HIM? And everybody's ok with that, because a 4/yr $56m deal is some sort of crippling deal that would hobble us for years? wow, what total bullshit. I predicted a 4/yr $60m deal for Zobrist, and the sabermetrically minded thought he was worth that and more, but that is an "overpay" we should be glad the Cubs indulged in? The Cubs are going to be one of our main rivals (if not THE main one) to win a pennant this year, and they replaced Starlin with Zobrist (win-win). And what are we doing? bemoaning the fact that Heyward is out of our reach? WHY IS HE OUT OF OUR REACH? Go ahead, people, say it. I want you to say it out loud. Say it!. Because our owners were either stupid or corrupt enough to try and win money in a pyramid scam and, after making consistently big returns in a bear market (at which they did not look too hard), they got wiped out by the guy just above them in the pyramid. And so they hocked everything and the interest hasn't even come due yet, so they still talk like they're a NY team but act like CitiField is in Oakland. We needed Zobrist + Heyward, we could make do with Murphy and Upton, but we're likely headed for Cabrera and Parra, or Span and Desmond (if we get anybody at all). And we're OK with that? The team should be in receivership and run by MLB, like they did with the Dodgers, until real owners are found. In the meantime, we'll just keep whistling past the graveyard and sing "happy days are here again." This has been a message from Philosophers Against the Wilpons... PAW, pushing a rock uphill since December 11, 2008. This. Obviously.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What Vic said. Of course. Because when I write that shit, it has no effect because I'm the Boy Who Cried Megdal. batmagadan, I'll be honest. I have been wondering how much of an effect you, and your non-stop re-posting of Megdal articles, have had on this debate here at the CPF. I wonder if the Great Payroll Debates of the 2010's would even be a debate if not for the history here. To me, it seems like a no-brainer. Fred promised to spend more money once we got close and attendance went up. Increased payroll means elite free agents, better chance at winning. With this not happening, I would have predicted that all Mets fans would revolt unanimously. But here, there is very little uproar about the payroll. A lot of justification of smaller moves. Even after we suffered through a league-worst offense, I feel like there is a strong contingent here not wanting to admit that the team was just not good enough before the trades. And now, with the team basically saying that they can't afford the top guys, I am seeing posters here stretch to find ways to justify the non-spending. Up until last Winter, I didn't take part much in these debates. Largely because I didn't care. The team was not close. Shin Soo Choo was not going to make the difference one way or the other. Plus, I thought it was all overblown. I really did think that the Wilpons would open it up when the time was right. But starting last winter, I felt like they were close, and started pushing for the big piece. We didn't get it. At the trade deadline, we were fortunate to secure those missing pieces at a bargain economically, though it did cost us in prospects. And now, this winter, the indications are that the Mets owners are still not ready to spend. I'm fully willing to admit that Megdal may have been right. Look, it doesn't make him a good writer, and I don't buy everything he said still, but he called this, didn't he? But people here are fighting me on this. And I wonder if this has something to do with you. This debate has been ongoing for years. People are entrenched in their positions. Agreeing with me, would essentially mean agreeing with you. And no one wants to do that. I think this is all your fault.

d'Kong76 wrote: Even back in my blue-and-orange-Wayfarer wearing days in 2000 I re- member posting on fora of old... hey, the Mets raise the pennant today. Oh, I forgot that sucks... nevermind. I take no solace in being NL Champs if it was three steps forward in 2015 and two-and-a-half steps back in 2015-16 offseason. Yup.

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, the World Series. Suckers. As if on cue. Come on Edgy. You can admit that going to the World Series can be separated from the performance of the owners.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'd have to think Walker is worth a middling prospect, given that we'd be doing the Pirates a $10 million favor. Do you think this is all it will take? If so I'd be all over that. But you'd have to think there would be competition to get him.

I guess we should also consider that Wheeler may not be any good next year. Sometimes it takes 2 years to get it back. Parnell certainly sucked.

What's Dillon Gee up to these days?

I like him a lot. One of my favorite Mets. I don't know how good he actually is or will be any more. I think he had a pretty crappy ERA sometime mid-season before rebounding at the end. I'm hoping they can get him back cheap purely on fun factor. Also I heard he's a great mentor for the pitchers. But for the 5th starter, we have Montero, Verrett and also the kid Gsellman in the minors. So lots of options there. Plus Wheeler comes back mid-season. I think money is probably better spent in the OF or bullpen, but I'd like to see Bartolo back.

*Avi

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think each winter meetings we seem to go into woe-is-me mode when other teams head from the hotels with shiny new toys and we're looking at the same toy box. Since we're a month out of playing in a World Series, I have to give our guys the benefit of the doubt and assume they know what they're doing. Let other teams overspend of some of these guys. This is silly. I get upset each winter because I feel the Mets don't do enough. And for the past several years, they haven't. Before this year, they hadn't had a winning record since 2008. And all the while, other teams are improving, signing players. Making the playoffs. So yes, call it "woe-is-me" mode if you like. I think I have a right to be upset when my team sucks and other teams get better. They made the World Series after making the moves I implored them to make. And I applauded them when they did so. Now, they are at risk to returning to their old habits. That's why I'm upset. Yes, let's let other teams "overspend". Let's not be the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers and Giants (the top 5 payrolls in baseball). Let's not be them at all. Let's pretend that this group has not won 6 out of the last 10 World Series. Ha ha. Look at those foolish overspenders. What idiots they are.

Edgy MD wrote: No, really, they got hit harder than most. Every team has injuries. Every team does not have injuries to the same degree. They got hit harder than most, and they endured a tough middle, and they adapted. And they won. And that is what happens when your best case scenario is a "just below average". I don't get this. The best-case scenario is and was demonstrably at least a National League pennant. Yay! I think I get how to read that chart, and I see that Washington was affected less than the Mets. I just can't gauge what that difference is, or how much of an effect that difference would have on production. I do see that St. Louis and Toronto were hit badly, but seemed to do fine. Realistically, the best case scenario for the offense going into 2015, if they remained injury free, was middle of the pack to just below average. When you aim low, injuries can push you to last in the league. That is why I said they needed to do more. When they did more (got Cespedes, called up Conforto), that's when they took off. It's not a difficult concept.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Don't be purposefully dense, I'm suggesting the "sample size" of half a season (dArnaud) and 3/4ths (Wright) were significant. I'm not being purposefully dense. The Mets played 13 games with d'Arnaud and Wright healthy before the reinforcements arrived. Neither returned until after the July 31 deadline. By that time, the Mets had traded for Cespedes and called up Conforto. Both of those were moves I had been urging them to do.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there. It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable. I don't think Gwreck's point is reasonably debatable. We've been over this before but if the Mets sucked so much cock on opening day how else to explain how well they played for the period where they weren't missing Wright and d'Arnaud. All teams with designs for the World Series made acquisitions to help get them there; the Mets need turned out to be more acute not because they were weak going into the year but because they were weakened with injuries to several key guys. Their bench needed an overhaul but that too wasn't a perceived weakness going into the year either David Wright played 8 games before going down with injury. Travis played 13. Are you suggesting that this sample size is significant? Lucas Duda had an OPS of 1.103 during that time. It's silly to draw any conclusions from that small subset of games. Everyone has injuries. Wright's and d'Arnaud's were certainly not a shock given their track record. If you have an offense that turns into the worst offense in baseball after losing two players, that offense was not good enough to begin with. I just mentioned in my other post that Washington lost two key players for big chunks of the season. They were still fine offensively. That is the problem with aiming for mediocrity. When you have setbacks, like you always do, you end up in danger of fielding the worst offense in baseball. And let's not lose sight of the fact that the two acquisitions the Mets made, Cuddyer and Mayberry, were terrible.

Ceetar wrote: Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there. It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable. I don't think Gwreck's point is reasonably debatable. So we knew in 2015 that d'Arnaud and Wright would miss all that time? Cause hell, a full season from them is worth well more than what Cespedes (And even the scraps Kelly and Juan added) Please. Stop with this. Every team has injuries. We didn't know in spring of 2015 that Wright and d'Arnaud would get hurt (though given their track record, it should not have been at all surprising). But we did know that someone would get hurt. Because someone always does. Washington didn't have Span all season. They went half a year without Rendon. They never sniffed a last place offense. Every team has injuries. Only the Mets were the worst offense in baseball. And that is what happens when your best case scenario is a "just below average". When you hit bumps, you end up at the bottom of the barrell. Last winter, there was a large contingent here that felt the Mets hadn't done enough. Cuddyer played himself onto the bench, and Mayberry was cut. How much more evidence do you guys need before admitting that we were right?