Centerfield

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think the 2016 club can be a lot better than 2015 only by staying healthier longer and playing better D, which are two very achievable goals not requiring a huge outlay of $$. Staying healthy and playing better D would help, but I don't think it brings you there. Right now, the team projected to start 2016 is basically the same, except we swap in Herrera for Murphy, and Lagares for Cespedes. (And the bullpen will be different) And definitely, this team is already better defensively. But it's a lot worse offensively. Even if this team managed to stay healthy longer, I don't think the improved defense is enough to offset the lost offense. The only way this team would be a lot better is if they played better defense, stayed healthy, got repeat performances from Granderson, Duda and d'Arnaud (Duda and d'Arnaud are good bets. Granderson is more of a variable), and saw steps forward taken by the young guys (Herrera, Flores, Lagares, Conforto). All while staying healthy in the rotation and at closer. And while all of this is possible, it leaves a lot to chance. They can take some of the guesswork out of this by spending money and bringing in more talent. And while you will never take luck and health out of the picture, adding shit tons of talent gives you more of a safety net. Now, all of that being said, as long as they fill out their pen, I think the current Mets can still be a contender. Maybe even win 90 games again. I think Conforto will be a star. I think Lagares, if he is healthy, will make strides at the plate. And if not, there is always Nimmo who can step in. And I think Granderson and Cuddyer will platoon in RF. And I think Cuddyer, after his surgery, will bounce back with a productive year. And I think our pitching will carry us. But who knows what might happen. That's why I want the Wilpons to open things up and put at team out there that has an upside of 120 wins.

Let's call Toronto. Tell them we have another one.

Frayed Knot wrote: And besides, no one is saying that Span is THE option to be taken ahead of all others, only that he's AN option to be considered. Fair. And LWFS point is taken as well. I'm just saying if you are going to go the "we don't necessarily need power" route, Jason Heyward basically is a much better, younger, healthier version of Span with tons more upside. (He just costs the Wilpons a lot more.) I like the idea of a "None of us are stars, but we're all great hitters" type of lineup, but for some reason I feel like trying to construct one of these is a lot more tenuous than the "get a masher" approach. And I know it's not logical since your masher could get hungry for Dominican food and get into the wrong cab, but I feel like getting a HR hitter seems like more of a sure thing. And I really hope that the goal this offseason is to be better than the team that ended 2015, rather than to be better than the team that started it.

Here the trend is (other than the Colon cover) is: Mets win: feature pitcher Mets Lose: feature hitter.

And only four pitchers at that.

From this sampling of covers it looks like the Mets have only pitchers.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I do think the reason you'd look elsewhere than Span would be if you might find *his* skills elsewhere (like, if we acquired a leadoff, stolen-base type at shortstop, or 2B or whatever). But if we went and got Desmond and penciled in 20 dingers from him, we wouldn't necessarily need to acquire the homer-iest center fielder out there. Also, barring the unforeseen we can probably forecast more home runs to come from C, 3B, LF, and 2B by doing nothing this offseason. Yes, if you went the Desmond route, or went crazy and got Tulo, then yes, Span makes a lot of sense then. Same with second base, if you got power there then same thing. But I don't think there is anyone at 2B.

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Else we just get ourselves caught up in a Heyward-or-Cespedes-or-bust situation. But neither of them, while they may cost the moon, are ideal fits either. I don't understand this at all. At all? Neither of those two sentences? As to the first sentence, I don't believe that if the team can't replace each homer of each player lost in the free agent market, they shouldn't shop. As noted, there are many ways to build the best team. With regards to the second sentence, I think it speaks for itself. While both are excellent players, neither are perfect fits, and require some maneuverings in the lineup. I certainly don't mean to suggest this reality makes a deal definitively prohibitive. I only mean to provide some context to suggest that Span not being a power hitter (of the order of Cespedes) should neither be definitively prohibitive. Agree on the first point. If we swing and miss on the top guys absolutely keep going. Sandy did just that this July when he was relentless. Just confused on the ideal part. Just about any player we sign will require further moves or maneuvering. Including Span. So I don't see how this is an obstacle to signing an elite guy.

And my thoughts on Denard Span... He is a terrific player when healthy and would be a great complement to any team that is in need of his specific set of skills. Leadoff centerfielder. For the Mets, the idea is that they need to offset the lost offense of Cespedes/Murphy. And OF is the most likely arena in which this can happen. Of the outfielders available, even if you take out age and health, Span is the fourth best option. Cespedes, Heyward, and Upton are all better. They have a higher career OPS. Their WAR numbers are higher. And the top three have a higher ceiling than Span. (Each can realistically give you an MVP year. Span, realistically, will not.) Once you factor in age (Span is the oldest and will be 32 next season) and health (speed guy who missed last season and just had hip surgery), it is not even a comparison. Sure, there are many ways to skin a cat, but Span is the worst option of the three. If money were not an option, only a fool would prefer Span to the Big Three. But because money matters, Span is being discussed. For the Mets, clearly money is a limiting factor. Some fans react by saying: "Ok. Then given our budget, let's go get Denard Span." I react with: "WHAT THE FUCK. WHY IS THERE NOT MORE MONEY? FUCK THESE GUYS. GO GET HEYWARD." So, back to Span. If you can get him to sign to reasonable money, reasonable length, get him to platoon with Lagares, and then trade Granderson at the peak of his value, and go get Heyward or Upton as well, then I am all in on Denard Span.

Edgy MD wrote: Else we just get ourselves caught up in a Heyward-or-Cespedes-or-bust situation. But neither of them, while they may cost the moon, are ideal fits either. I don't understand this at all. Heyward is a 26 year old superstar outfielder who can give you great defense at every outfield position and hit anywhere in the lineup. It's hard to imagine any more of an ideal player than Heyward. If we are applying that logic, neither then, is Span. We have a centerfielder and a leadoff man already. I thought the argument proposed here was that anyone we sign for the OF would have to platoon with Lagares. What makes anyone think Span is willing to do this?

Meanwhile, in other news, Colby Rasmus is highly qualified: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/report--colby-rasmus-will-be-first-player-ever-to-accept-a-qualifying-offer-232456204.html

He didn't get a QO right? That might tell you something.

Although, now that I think about it, if I were young, single, playing baseball in NY, and had millions of dollars to spend on stupid shit, I can't say for certain I wouldn't build a batmobile. I mean, I don't think I would, but I'm not sure I can totally rule it out. But I most certainly would not drive over to LWFS's house, pick him up, then cruise around town blasting Latin music. That would never happen.

So, the guy is definitely an "at-risk" when it comes to douchability factor. He has a customized walk up song, this batmobile stuff, dogs it on many plays, and acts like a limb has been severed every time he gets dinged up (see Floyd, Cliff). I don't know. I still like him. I'm still holding onto a faint hope that we can sign him for 4-5 years.

Would they take a Wheeler-centric package for him? I really don't know anything about the guy. I think that means he will end up in our bullpen this year.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: That's why they have a BJ's Clubhouse! Yes. Discount BJ's. Typical Wilpons.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think I might rather have Murphy for one year than Zobrist for three. I like the idea of Herrera at second base, but it's much easier to hand a starting job to a rookie in a season where you're more likely than not to finish with about 70 to 75 wins. In a year when you hope to win 95, you can't do that without a Plan B. I really don't know what the best course of action is. Adding a bat to the outfield and leaving the middle infield to Flores, Tejada, Reynolds, and Herrera might actually be the best choice, but I'd be very reluctant to commit to that at this point. This is exactly what I was thinking. And handing a job to a rookie is much more palatable when you have added Upton/Heyward to your lineup than if you have Gerardo Parra. I think Herrera will do pretty good if given the chance. If not, I'd like to see them re-up Kelly Johnson as insurance/platoon partner. Kelly can also give David Wright a blow. Though you may have to pay extra for that.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Not necessarily. Zobrist plays virtually every position on the diamond, and defensively, he does corner outfield almost as well as he does the right side of the infield. Even in terms of versatility, he's one up on Murphy; he'll be able to get games in spelling Flores, Duda, Wright and Curtis/Conforto, along with any semi-regular second base gig. Wow I'm just on fire lately. Never mind. As you were.

I view Zobrist as a better version of Daniel Murphy. Except more expensive, and a lot older. I guess the key questions will be how long is the deal, and how likely are we see a dropoff now that he is 35+. I think you first have to resolve the Murphy situation (which we expect by 5 p.m. today). Then you have to see what he will cost you. Buzz around the league is that there are lots of teams bidding. Including the Royals, with whom he just won a championship. And I think you also have to take into account Dilson Herrera. The guy has hit at every level, and most in the organization say he has nothing more to prove in AAA. Good glove, pretty decent speed, and has already shown some pop in his limited time in the bigs. Last year, he put up a .677 OPS. You'd hope that would progress to the low (or even mid?) .700's in 2016. http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=herrer000dil If you sign Zobrist, you likely get better production for next year. (You'd think Zobrist would be high .700's, low .800) But you basically block Herrera for the length of the Zobrist contract.

I have to tell you. I'm still just amazed by this deal. I don't think I've ever underestimated a player's value as much as this. To me, Andrelton Simmons is nearly a clone of Juan Lagares. Both elite defenders. Both suck at the plate (OPS in the mid .600's). Both have the ability to put up nice WAR numbers because of their defense, but really create a hole in the lineup. Of course, SS is a more elite position than CF, but CF is still pretty fucking important. So if Simmons has this much value, should we make Lagares available and ask for Jose Fernandez? I mean, think about this. Tejada and Simmons are nearly identical at the plate. Tejada plays excellent defense. Simmons plays All-World defense. Simmons is a "steal" at 5 years, 53 million. Tejada is a non-tender risk at $2.5 million. This is crazy.

Trades like this show me that I have not a clue how to be a major league GM. Clrarly I have no clue the value of Andrelton Simmons.

Gotcha. I still think the Lagares/Grandy platoon works and opens up a spot (whether CF for Heyward or RF for Upton). You'd hope over time, Lagares would produce in a way to eventually earn his way to the lion's share of at-bats (Granderson gets older, Lagares comes into his prime). That way he's ready to take over full time once Curtis's contract is up. I think that your analysis means that Span is pretty unlikely.

I forgot Darryl Hamilton was murdered this year. Now I'm sad for him again.

Guys I had never heard of before this season: Hansel Robles Eric Goedell Addison Reed Jerry Blevins Alex Torres Eric O'Flaherty (I didn't remember him anyway) Dario Alvarez

Gwreck wrote: Why not just sign Heyward and not have to give up Harvey? You lose a pick for signing Heyward, gain a similar-level pick for losing Murphy. All it costs is money and the Mets should have plenty of it.