Centerfield

I feel like those awards are about as real as the CPF Schaefer Player of the Year.

I was going to write that Simmons was not worth his contract. That we'd be paying $53 million for a modern day Ordonez. But then I figured I should look up his stats. Do you guys realize Rey's OPS as a Met? .594. Holy crap Rey was a bad hitter.

Yeah. I think you're right. And another factor should be if this was an isolated incident or if a pattern of abuse is discovered. It sucks that Jose has to be the poster boy for this. But you know, I guess he deserves it.

I think Sandy said afterwards that as soon as they had the Marlins offer, the Reyes camp said if you're not going to match or beat it, don't bother. So the Mets didn't. Whether that is what happened or not we may never know. I do remember Reyes saying he felt shunned afterwards. Getting back to the point, I do think MLB should come down hard on Reyes. It's important to be ahead of the curve on this and not look the other way like they did with steroids. Send a message that this won't be tolerated. Maybe 81 games is too severe, but certainly more than 5 or 10. Maybe 25 or 30? What they should not do, is give him a slap on the wrist, wait for footage to come out of the incident, then increase the punishment. NFL: We didn't realize Ray Rice knocked out his fiance in such a violent manner. Now that we see he did not gently punch her unconscious, we are increasing the suspension.

At the back end is some guy named Familia. The Mets have already been linked to Darren O'Day and Joakim Soria. On their own, each of these guys would be a nice get. But expensive middle relievers are a luxury that only high payroll teams get to enjoy no? And even if you can afford them, whether or not they make sense is up for debate. Not sure there is anything in sports more volatile than the performance of a middle reliever.

Edgy MD wrote: Centerfield wrote: I freakin' love our rotation. I'm not sure I can speak objectively about this. Besides. I think anyone named "Mookie" should automatically be a Met. Sure, but they shouldn't have to give anybody up. It should just be a Mets right of first refusal.. That's what I'm saying. In fact they should have to give us Bogaerts for this transgression.

David Samson wrote: My strong suggestion to Mr. Boras is that instead of resting on his 5 percent that he collects from his stable of players, he write a check and buy a team. Then he would have the opportunity to run a team that he claims to be so able to do. Until that time, he is in no position to comment how any Major League Baseball team is operated. Sell the Team to Scott Boras NOW!!!!

I freakin' love our rotation. I'm not sure I can speak objectively about this. Besides. I think anyone named "Mookie" should automatically be a Met.

And in the long run, your approach is probably healthier. When it comes to being a fan in the offseason, you are "just-happy-to-be-here" Justin Turner. And I am "way-too-intense" Paul O'Neill, screaming and throwing my helmet at the Wilpons.

Yes. In one version they talked about asking for Plawecki. In the next, it was deGrom!

I swear that is a different article than the one I read 15 minutes ago. If they are asking for one of the big 4, they should be laughed off.

Ceetar wrote: a 'level 4' offense is actually fine though. I'm starting to realize that this is the thinking of many people here. I don't understand it, I don't agree with it. But if one thinks this way, I get why that person would not have an issue with the Wilpons. Because it's "good enough". For me, I think the owners have a responsibility to field the best team they possibly can. And with this team, having five of the best young pitchers in team history (rotation + Familia), the team has the potential to be legendary. This is when you put the pedal to the metal. This is not a time to let up and coast. These next few years could be the greatest of all time. I don't understand settling for "fine". But it's clear that many of you guys don't want a payroll increase, or at least, may be indifferent to it. I don't think that it's because you refute that a top tier payroll gives a competitive advantage. I think that is not really disputed. So that leads me to conclude that there must be some other reason to not want this edge. Stemming from a sense of romance? Nobility? Wanting to be different than the Yankees? Maybe large payroll teams are fascist, and winning on a limited budget is more democratic. I don't know. But there must be something to it. I guess we just think differently.

I think we can surmise that Simmons is available since the article states that the Braves have let clubs know that he is available. And I don't see anything about wanting Harvey or deGrom. In fact, it suggests they are looking for young position players. That being said, I'd pass. 5 years and 53 million is a huge commitment for a guy with an OPS in the mid to low .600's. And we already have an all-glove, no-hit SS in Tejada, though admittedly not as good with glove. I'd use the money, and prospects, elsewhere.

Ceetar, A clarification. I get that if the Mets do absolutely nothing, the offense should be better than the first-half offense. That last place offense took a perfect storm of bad preparation, and bad luck. They had a bad winter. The offense was limited before a pitch was thrown. Then they lost Wright, lost d'Arnaud. Mayberry sucked. Cuddyer sucked. Murphy got hurt again. I don't expect the offense to be that bad again. But I don't want to go into this season simply "better than the worse offense in MLB". I want to go in similar to the second half offense. That second half offense was the best in baseball. With threats in the lineup 1-8. It also featured, for the first time since Delgado in his prime, a legitimate cleanup hitter. A guy that made pitchers shake when he was in the on-deck circle. Now, I realize that Cespedes, in reality, is not really that guy. He just did a good job of pretending to be him for 6 weeks. So even if we re-sign him we can expect a dropoff. But I want the Mets, this winter, to go out and try to replace Murphy and the Super-Human version of Cespedes with the best options available. And if that means opening up the budget, open it up dammit! If the first half offense was a 1, and the second half offense was a 10, I'd like to see the offense be a 7 or 8 going into April. And the pieces are certainly available this winter to make it happen. My fear is that the Mets are going to go with second rate options (like they did last Winter) and go into Spring with a level 4 offense, and then talk about how they have "improved" from the offense of first half 2015.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The worst news in that article is that Conforto is a Boras client. Agreed. But I think I read someplace that this was a factor in him falling in the draft allowing us to get him in the first place.

Boras will come out with a formula demonstrating how those extra innings bolstered his arm.

d'Kong76 wrote: I love ya man, but jeez I'd like to wear the glasses you wear for a few days to see what makes you tick sometimes. Right? Sometimes I wonder to myself if the Admins are ghost-writing for him just to stir things up around here!

It's just mind-boggling. We're losing Cespedes and Murphy, and the plan is to give those at-bats to Herrera, Lagares and Cuddyer? All three had an OPS in the .600's. Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. Can we please not fall into the trap, just one week into the off-season, of making up the outcome for the sole purpose of criticizing the both the process and the result? I'm not making up the outcome. I thought that's what you were suggesting. Your words: The Mets currently have three OFs under multi-year deals plus Conforto, which means that if they go out to sign a premier FA OF it's not going to be in addition to what they already have but instead of one or more of them. My interpretation: Don't forget about Cuddyer. He will get some of those at-bats. Your words: the team isn't moving Granderson (their best offensive player this past year) nor LAGARES (a 26 y/o GG CF) to a backup/PH role. My interpretation: Lagares will get those at-bats. My takeaway: FK thinks the Cespedes at-bats are going to Lagares, and to a lesser extent, Cuddyer.

I think your idea is far more likely to materialize than mine. One thing I didn't realize until last night is that Desmond is fast. He'll steal 20 bases a year. Couple him with Span, Granderson and Herrera and suddenly you have a running team. Sucks that Washington extended the QO on Desmond.

Ceetar wrote: Can we remember that Lagares hit better than Cespedes and Conforto in the postseason too maybe? Everyone remembers what Lagares did in the post-season. Everyone else, besides you, understands how much weight to give that small sample size. It is foolish to think Lagares is a better hitter than Conforto or Cespedes. And just so we are clear, Michael Cuddyer's full year is not a significant sample size to draw conclusions, but Lagares' work in October is? Gotcha.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: It'd put an old guy with a shitty arm and poor range where a young guy with a good arm and great range used to be. It'd be catastrophic. Understood that it's not a perfect solution. But the alternative is downgrading from Cespedes to Lagares. This give you a drop of .300 points of OPS. And this is assuming Conforto and Granderson repeat their performances in 2016. I get that you are not happy about putting Granderson in CF. How do you propose to offset the offense that was lost?

At the end of the day, baseball brought this mess upon itself by looking the other way as steroids became rampant in the sport. It destroyed hallowed numbers like 61, 714 and 755. When I was growing up, everyone knew 755, 714, 660. What are the home run records now? Does anyone even know without looking? And by the same token, they fucked up the Hall of Fame as well.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Once a player is eligible, the voters should vote based upon the player's performance. And only the player's performance. If you add anything else, this already subjective standard becomes too arbitrary and random. But the player's character is already part of the official criteria: 5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. If it was just about the numbers, then yes, Bonds and Clemens would definitely go in. But I can't fault voters who choose not to ignore "integrity, sportsmanship, character". In fact, I agree with them. I understand it's there now. And that is what writers are using to justify their decisions. As part of my reboot, I would remove it and just base it on performance. The "character and integrity" standard sounds great in theory. And I understand the HoF wanting to give flexibility for voters to keep complete dickheads from gaining entry. But that criteria lends itself to abuse, such as those writers who decline to vote for someone merely on suspicion of steroids. The writers who won't vote for Piazza because they have an unsubstantiated suspicion that he is of low moral character. Judging the numbers of one individual against another's is already fairly subjective. Once you throw in the nice guy standard and allow writers to become the judge of crimes, real or imagined, the standard deteriorates and the guidelines become too random. In my opinion anyway.

Good idea for a thread. Out of curiosity, I'd love to hear what other CPF'ers would like to see this offseason. Don't restrict yourself to $115. Sandy collapses. Doesn't get up. Fred anoints you the GM. Says there is no budget. He'll sign off on whatever you think makes baseball sense. What do you do? I know Edgy would sign Murphy, BG would go after Heyward. KC would open up the budget. Not sure what else though. Here's my (roughly) $115 million proposal: $92 Million on the books. $20 Million to Upton/Heyward/Cespedes. Pursue all three, I figure one of them has to bite. I offer Cespedes 4-5 years. Upton 6 or 7. For Heyward I go 7, maybe 8 if I have to. I try to make the last years on each of them an option if possible. Granderson and Lagares platoon in CF if it's Upton. If it's Heyward/Cespedes, see if they are a better fit for CF than Granderson. My order of preference is Heyward, Upton, then as a last resort, Cespedes. $2 million on Blevins. $2 million on Kelly Johnson. Scour the scrap heap for a reclamation project starter that I can turn into a good bullpen guy. Ideally someone who throws hard still. Also scour the trade market for a young SS that I can land with some combination of Wheeler/Flores/Nimmo/Plawecki. If not, go to war with what I have. I have Flores and Tejada. Cecchini and Reynolds ready to win a job if any of them falter. Cuddyer becomes platoon partners with Duda. Also spells Wright on his days off. Johnson can do this too. Johnson also supplies insurance in case Herrera is really not ready. Total Payroll: $116-120 million. If Fred comes to me and say I absolutely, positively have to dump salary, I trade Jon Niese and his $9 million salary. I go with Montero/Verrett as my fifth starters, but now I have no safety net in my rotation until Wheeler shows up. And obviously I now cannot trade Wheeler. But in no way do I pass up on a franchise outfielder because I want to pay my fifth starter $9 million. I also hold on to Mejia and try to trade him as his reinstatement approaches. If this team stays healthy, I think they win the NL East and are a strong candidate to go back to the World Series.

Frayed Knot wrote: The Mets currently have three OFs under multi-year deals plus Conforto, which means that if they go out to sign a premier FA OF it's not going to be in addition to what they already have but instead of one or more of them. If you want to argue for that strategy then fine, but a top FA isn't coming here to platoon and the team isn't moving Granderson (their best offensive player this past year) nor LAGARES (a 26 y/o GG CF) to a backup/PH role. If you want to keep those guys and merely reduce their roles then it's going to be for a lesser, more platoon-type of import, not the likes of Heyward or Upton or Adam Jones. If you look at the splits of Granderson and Lagares, a platoon between the two is exactly what the team should do. Granderson has a .300 point differential in OPS. Lagares, about .180. If you platoon those two, that is one terrific centerfielder. This also opens up an OF spot for either Upton or Heyward. If you sign Heyward, you can move Granderson back to RF and not have to worry about the dropoff in defense from this alignment. And sure, I realize Granderson is a gamble in CF. But over 162, I'd much rather have a Granderson/Lagares platoon at CF and Upton in RF, than take my chances with some combination of Lagares/Granderson/Cuddyer to provide enough offense. Now, if you meant that the team won't do this because of the money already committed, then that is a different story. You may be, and probably are, exactly right about this. But this is exactly the type of budget-related constraints I have been complaining about this past week. A big market team does not have to do this. A big market team platoons their investments, relegates Cuddyer to the bench, and brings in guys who can get the job done. Especially if that big market team just lost a World Series and is undoubtedly a player or two away. It's just mind-boggling. We're losing Cespedes and Murphy, and the plan is to give those at-bats to Herrera, Lagares and Cuddyer? All three had an OPS in the .600's. They've made us wait 6 years for this pitching staff to arrive. Who knows how many years they will be together. You can't waste one of those years because you want to get at-bats for Lagares and Cuddyer.