Centerfield

All threads eventually lead...

Holy crap that sucks. They might as well just wear a patch of my ass.

="Edgy DC":3a6v80an]Proof in pudding. Actions will speak.[/quote:3a6v80an] They've already acted. They don't have to actually land Texiera to act in the manner I want the Mets to act in. By exploring their opportunities, recognizing a valuable asset, gauging the market for Lowell, they've already done exactly what I've been saying Omar should do. If they get outbid, so be it. At least they've demonstrated an ability to be creative and not get boxed in with conventional thinking. They recognized how special Texiera was as a player. They recognized that, despite impressive offensive numbers last year, that the middle of their lineup could use upgrading. They did not allow that fact that they have players locked in at those positions prevent them from making a run at Texeira. And if, after all that, they get outbid, so be it. At least they tried. My point this whole offseason is that the Mets should have tried to make a run at him. They should have explored the market for Delgado. Even if they get nothing back for Carlos other than dumping his salary, and if they can find a taker for Schneider (Red Sox rumored to be interested), then that frees up $18 million. Backload an 8 year, 160 million dollar deal and that adds no additional payroll. It does not prevent them from pursuing a pitcher or three. Is there anyone on earth that wouldn't rather have a combination of Texiera/Castro rather than Delgado/Schneider? If that's the case, why not try? Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 12:22 PM I'm referring, I think it's clear in my tense, to the team having a full off-season in which to continue to pursue players. Do we really need more leaks out of Metland as proof of adminstrative action? Nymr83 Dec 19 2008 02:58 PM The proof will be in the roster that takes the field April 1st, at which time I'll criticize Omar (or praise him) for his roster moves, meanwhile he should keep his hand close to his chest.

From ESPN: The Red Sox, too, have bid aggressively, after having quietly targeted the switch-hitting, Gold-Glove caliber first baseman throughout this entire offseason. Teixeira, who turns 29 next April, has been among the most consistent hitters in the majors in recent years, thriving when he was traded to contenders twice in consecutive years -- first, in 2007, to the Braves, and then in 2008, to the Angels. Teixeira batted .358 in 54 games for the Angels, with 13 homers and 43 RBIs. When the Angels met the Red Sox in the postseason, Teixeira batted .467 with four walks in four games. If the Red Sox complete the negotiations for Teixeira, they presumably would shift Kevin Youkilis -- who finished third in the AL MVP voting in 2008 -- to third base, and look to deal veteran third baseman Mike Lowell, who is under contract through 2 010. The Red Sox have gauged the market enough to know that they can find a suitable deal for Lowell, if necessary. Boston may decide to keep Lowell into spring training, until they get a read on how effective Ortiz will be going into this season. The Red Sox became increasingly concerned about the quality of the middle of their lineup through the 2008 season, as David Ortiz struggled to come back from a wrist injury and after Manny Ramirez was traded. Is there any question that if Omar were the Sox GM, he would talk about how they are "set" at first and third? For the record, the Red Sox beat the Mets in just about every offensive category. I realize that there's that DH thing, but the Sox were second only to Texas in runs scored in the AL. They could have easily used that "we scored enough runs last year" logic if they so chose.

="Nymr83":1fipctoh]lets see if the Braves really mean it.[/quote:1fipctoh] They'll mean it until Tellem represent a player that they really really want. TransMonk Dec 18 2008 03:13 PM ="Centerfield":2ii6qq0s]They'll mean it until Tellem represent a player that they really really want.[/quote:2ii6qq0s] The Spice Girlishness of this comment overwhelmed me for a second.

You'd have to think it was Furcal who backed out, since he's the one making the call. If that's the case, it's seems dumb to hold the agent responsible. Wah wah. Get it in writing morons.

You don't have to be that specific. If Omar were looking to add more offense, he could say something along the lines of, "We are continuing to explore our options to improve our offense. Although we are comfortable with the guys we have, we are always looking to improve. If the right deal comes along, we'll be in the mix." That undermines no one. There is no benefit to be had by indicating you are not looking to add offense, unless you are not looking to add offense. In that case, you could put that out there in an effort to dampen fan expectation. The Santana situation is different. No matter what Omar may have said in public, all the rumblings had the Mets in the mix for Santana from the get-go. This time, we have no rumors, no rumblings, no activity at all.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1tuzaza8]It could mean the worst outfield in the history of o.b.b., at least defensively. Manny-Johnny-Nady... wow.[/quote:1tuzaza8] Nope. That distinction belongs to any outfield featuring Roger Cedeno in centerfield. seawolf17 Dec 18 2008 01:18 PM ="Centerfield"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]It could mean the worst outfield in the history of o.b.b., at least defensively. Manny-Johnny-Nady... wow. Nope. That distinction belongs to any outfield featuring Roger Cedeno in centerfield. "Wait... what?"

="Nymr83":bgzpl293]Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for"[/quote:bgzpl293] ="Edgy DC":bgzpl293]I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none?[/quote:bgzpl293] I believe Omar does not think we need anything more offensively because I have heard him say it and have not heard that he has taken any action contrary to his stated position. He has said publicly that he willl address the bullpen first, then starting pitching, and if there is anything left over, maybe the offense. So far he has done exactly that. While he goes about doing this, certain candidates that might have helped us offensively have signed with other teams. It's possible that these guys were never in the Mets plans anyway. But all signs point to Omar being content with the offense. I continue to hope that such is not the case, but it is my fear. As to him playing it coy, it defies common sense. Omar can deny as much as he wants...if he were to start making offers to free agents, or explore trades, everyone would know that the interest is there. If there really were an advantage to pretending you don't have an interest, then the strategy should have been employed with the bullpen and starting rotation as well. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 12:36 PM Here's some sense: "Right now, Castillo's going to be our second baseman," Minaya said. Now, isn't it sensicle to not undermine the guy while he's still your best bet? Is saying something is the higher priority really saying other priorities will be ignored? Remember when he said something akin to "If the right deal isn't there for relief help, we'll work more on the offense." No less than seven Met fans lit themselves on fire that night, aghast that he could even consider walking away without improving the pen. The offseason is long and hard. Johan Santana arrived in February, after a winter of the Mets being cool about how desperately they desired him. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 01:53 PM You don't have to be that specific. If Omar were looking to add more offense, he could say something along the lines of, "We are continuing to explore our options to improve our offense. Although we are comfortable with the guys we have, we are always looking to improve. If the right deal comes along, we'll be in the mix." That undermines no one. There is no benefit to be had by indicating you are not looking to add offense, unless you are not looking to add offense. In that case, you could put that out there in an effort to dampen fan expectation. The Santana situation is different. No matter what Omar may have said in public, all the rumblings had the Mets in the mix for Santana from the get-go. This time, we have no rumors, no rumblings, no activity at all. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM I'm sure Minaya has said more or less the same. dgwphotography Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM he he - Edgy put "ass" and "hole" in the subject... I would say that my most pressing concern is 2nd base - Castillo killed us in every possible way last year. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:11 PM ="HahnSolo":2hrybrte]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:2hrybrte] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:16 PM The issue with Hudson would be that signing him costs still more drafts next year. I am by no means a supporter of Castillo -- I was against signing him way back when he was good, even -- but if we just left him there and he was healthy I am CAHNfident he'll have a better year. I can't say that about any other player in the lineup 'cept maybe Church, and even then, I ain't sure. So yeah, the answer is left field, or if we trade Church, right field. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:24 PM Marty Noble, for what it's worth, is quite happy with the Mets in left field. (He was talking about it on Hot Stove Report a couple of weeks ago.) He likes platoons, and he thinks the Mets have it in the proper balance, with the older player being right-handed and not playing as often, and the younger guy being a lefty and getting more at bats. He thinks they'll be solid in left. I hope he's right. But it seems to me there's more than a decent chance that Tatis will decline and that Murphy's 2008 success won't carry over. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:36 PM Shane and Karim but me off of platooning a little. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:38 PM If one platoon works, how about two? Burrell can platoon with Murphy and/or Church. It would mean fewer starts for Tatis, but allows him to be the primary RH pinch-hitter we need and more of a 3B/RF/LF backup to all 3. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:44 PM My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright. HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:46 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":xjjhr5lh]="HahnSolo":xjjhr5lh]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM ="Edgy DC":1nhltiet]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:1nhltiet] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM I suppose if you bring in Burrell you play him most days and mostly in left. Then Murph could challenge either Church or Castillo. The other thing we gotta think about is first base in 2010 -- not many good FA's coming to market then, unless you count Delgado, so maybe this year's left fielder is next year's first baseman. That also looks maybe like a Burrell kinda job. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:37 PM 1B - we have relatively lower dollars tied up in all the other "trouble" positions, and if in-season moves are necessary, we won't be paralyzed by budgetary constraints to fix any of them, unlike our $12m 1bman. Also, none of the other positions are being counted on for middle-of-the-order production. So, if Delgado's 1st half becomes the first 2/3 of the 2009 season, it'll be hard for the Mets to come back. If his 1st half is replicated for the entire 2009 season, we're cooked. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:51 PM ]Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? that sounds like me. I'm surprised Barfield has not developed, but Shoppach sure showed some punch last year. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 08:05 PM From ESPN: The Red Sox, too, have bid aggressively, after having quietly targeted the switch-hitting, Gold-Glove caliber first baseman throughout this entire offseason. Teixeira, who turns 29 next April, has been among the most consistent hitters in the majors in recent years, thriving when he was traded to contenders twice in consecutive years -- first, in 2007, to the Braves, and then in 2008, to the Angels. Teixeira batted .358 in 54 games for the Angels, with 13 homers and 43 RBIs. When the Angels met the Red Sox in the postseason, Teixeira batted .467 with four walks in four games. If the Red Sox complete the negotiations for Teixeira, they presumably would shift Kevin Youkilis -- who finished third in the AL MVP voting in 2008 -- to third base, and look to deal veteran third baseman Mike Lowell, who is under contract through 2 010. The Red Sox have gauged the market enough to know that they can find a suitable deal for Lowell, if necessary. Boston may decide to keep Lowell into spring training, until they get a read on how effective Ortiz will be going into this season. The Red Sox became increasingly concerned about the quality of the middle of their lineup through the 2008 season, as David Ortiz struggled to come back from a wrist injury and after Manny Ramirez was traded. Is there any question that if Omar were the Sox GM, he would talk about how they are "set" at first and third? For the record, the Red Sox beat the Mets in just about every offensive category. I realize that there's that DH thing, but the Sox were second only to Texas in runs scored in the AL. They could have easily used that "we scored enough runs last year" logic if they so chose. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 08:37 PM Proof in pudding. Actions will speak. smg58 Dec 19 2008 05:25 AM For starters, the Red Sox are currently talking as though they've been seriously outbid. 8 years and $200M for Teixeira is looking likely. In addition, with a few third baseman on the market who won't make $24M over the next two years, will not cost players, and are not injury risks, don't assume that the Sox can sell Lowell for more than pennies on the dollar. The Mets would be in a similar position with Delgado; if teams looking for a DH/1B can get a year of Giambi for less money and no players, or three years of Dunn for less money per year and no players, pennies on the dollar is the most you can hope for. And that has to be factored into the final bill for Teixeira. And the Red Sox don't need more pitching as badly as the Mets, either. We need to add another lefty reliever, and right now we have two spots in the rotation to fill with only one rookie who's likely a year away in any position to fill one of them. metirish Dec 19 2008 07:14 AM Red Sox owner said in an email to reporters that they went to Dallas to meet with Texeria and Boras and quickly realized that they would not be a factor despite offering $160 million for eight years. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 07:48 AM They did a similar act with Dice-K before they wound up with him. Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 08:16 AM ="HahnSolo":sx1dmk2j]="Edgy DC":sx1dmk2j]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd say it's like that every year. Centerfield Dec 19 2008 11:21 AM ="Edgy DC":3a6v80an]Proof in pudding. Actions will speak.[/quote:3a6v80an] They've already acted. They don't have to actually land Texiera to act in the manner I want the Mets to act in. By exploring their opportunities, recognizing a valuable asset, gauging the market for Lowell, they've already done exactly what I've been saying Omar should do. If they get outbid, so be it. At least they've demonstrated an ability to be creative and not get boxed in with conventional thinking. They recognized how special Texiera was as a player. They recognized that, despite impressive offensive numbers last year, that the middle of their lineup could use upgrading. They did not allow that fact that they have players locked in at those positions prevent them from making a run at Texeira. And if, after all that, they get outbid, so be it. At least they tried. My point this whole offseason is that the Mets should have tried to make a run at him. They should have explored the market for Delgado. Even if they get nothing back for Carlos other than dumping his salary, and if they can find a taker for Schneider (Red Sox rumored to be interested), then that frees up $18 million. Backload an 8 year, 160 million dollar deal and that adds no additional payroll. It does not prevent them from pursuing a pitcher or three. Is there anyone on earth that wouldn't rather have a combination of Texiera/Castro rather than Delgado/Schneider? If that's the case, why not try? Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 12:22 PM I'm referring, I think it's clear in my tense, to the team having a full off-season in which to continue to pursue players. Do we really need more leaks out of Metland as proof of adminstrative action? Nymr83 Dec 19 2008 02:58 PM The proof will be in the roster that takes the field April 1st, at which time I'll criticize Omar (or praise him) for his roster moves, meanwhile he should keep his hand close to his chest.

By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.

="Gwreck":axj5ytme]="Centerfield":axj5ytme]I went with First Base. I think second base and catcher will be our least productive, but first base concerns me the most because it seems like Omar is banking on Delgado being a middle-of-the-lineup run producer. If he sucks, we're in trouble.[/quote:axj5ytme] Yes, if Delgado sucks, we have a problem. We also have a problem if Wright, or Reyes or Beltran suck. I think concern should be greater for those positions where the players we have are more likely to suck. I am going with left field. I don't have much confidence in a Tatis/Murphy combo. I want to see an everyday left fielder, one that gives us the option of using Tatis to spell Church against a lefty, and use Murphy at second base (at least part of the time).[/quote:axj5ytme] None of those three are as likely to suck as Delgado, who after his season and half of suck, has sucked half his time here. Signing a middle of the order run-producing leftfielder would assuage a lot of these worries too, as that would mean Delgado would move down in the order. But while there are a lot of good options in leftfield, there are no real great ones. Centerfield Dec 17 2008 04:44 PM By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one. OlerudOwned Dec 17 2008 04:46 PM Left field. It's a spot where you can sacrifice defense for a big bat, and we don't have too much of either there. Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 05:26 PM ="Centerfield":3ebynzom]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3ebynzom] Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for" Frayed Knot Dec 17 2008 05:42 PM After exactly 100 HRs, nearly 200 XBHs and better than .350 OBA/.500 Slugging over 3 seasons, I'd argue that Delgado has NOT "sucked half his time here". That's probably about average among 1Bmen and, considering that the best half-season might be the most recent, I'm not fearing the crash-n-burn as much as some others seem to be. LF & 2B are much more likely to be seriously below average IMO (offense & defense). Nymr83 Dec 17 2008 05:55 PM I worry that the Mets will "pencil in" Delgado for something similar to this past year's 2nd half and instead get what they got from him in 2007 (his worst year in the majors.) MFS62 Dec 17 2008 06:14 PM The team can platoon, or has semi-capable backups in left, at first and catcher. But second base troubles me the most. Even when Castillo has been healthy, he has been on a decline. His one asset was speed, on the bases and in the field. But as he gets older and loses his speed, what will he have left to contribute? And Omar seems to be placing all of his ova in that one basket. Later Gwreck Dec 17 2008 07:29 PM ="Centerfield":3li9ifou]By the way, while we argue over which of these suckass options sucks the most, I think this thread demonstrates that when Omar says he was comfortable with our offense as is, he seems to be the only one.[/quote:3li9ifou] I'm not necessarily "comfortable" either, but we didn't lose in '08 because of the offense. The runs were scored. We lost because of the 'pen. Edgy DC Dec 17 2008 08:41 PM I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none? smg58 Dec 18 2008 07:34 AM Second base. It's by far the easiest position to upgrade. Castillo killed us with the glove and the bat last year. Ranking the other spots: Catcher. We're overpaying for what we're getting, but the defense is fine and there are not very many obvious upgrades out there. First base. Delgado concerns me a little bit. Then again, with Citifield being nine feet shorter down the rightfield line, the good Delgado could hit 40 if he shows up this year. Left field. Murphy has earned the right to play. His defense in left was actually plus, according to the Fielding Bible. Having a high OBP in the second spot in the lineup is a good thing. Right field. Church was very good when healthy, and he plays outstanding defense. A platoon partner might be in order, but I don't see anybody available who would still be an upgrade against righthanded pitching when defense is factored in. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 12:23 PM ="Nymr83":bgzpl293]Isn't that what you want him to say? or do you want him to say "we are fuckin' desperate for a hitter, so any agents representing one please please please let us give you every penny you are asking for"[/quote:bgzpl293] ="Edgy DC":bgzpl293]I'm certain Minaya will have other options at second. I must say that I'm surprised at how many people seem to be arguing that the Mets will do nothing else on offense. This thread is about what his top concern should be. Are you really convinced that he has none?[/quote:bgzpl293] I believe Omar does not think we need anything more offensively because I have heard him say it and have not heard that he has taken any action contrary to his stated position. He has said publicly that he willl address the bullpen first, then starting pitching, and if there is anything left over, maybe the offense. So far he has done exactly that. While he goes about doing this, certain candidates that might have helped us offensively have signed with other teams. It's possible that these guys were never in the Mets plans anyway. But all signs point to Omar being content with the offense. I continue to hope that such is not the case, but it is my fear. As to him playing it coy, it defies common sense. Omar can deny as much as he wants...if he were to start making offers to free agents, or explore trades, everyone would know that the interest is there. If there really were an advantage to pretending you don't have an interest, then the strategy should have been employed with the bullpen and starting rotation as well. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 12:36 PM Here's some sense: "Right now, Castillo's going to be our second baseman," Minaya said. Now, isn't it sensicle to not undermine the guy while he's still your best bet? Is saying something is the higher priority really saying other priorities will be ignored? Remember when he said something akin to "If the right deal isn't there for relief help, we'll work more on the offense." No less than seven Met fans lit themselves on fire that night, aghast that he could even consider walking away without improving the pen. The offseason is long and hard. Johan Santana arrived in February, after a winter of the Mets being cool about how desperately they desired him. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 01:53 PM You don't have to be that specific. If Omar were looking to add more offense, he could say something along the lines of, "We are continuing to explore our options to improve our offense. Although we are comfortable with the guys we have, we are always looking to improve. If the right deal comes along, we'll be in the mix." That undermines no one. There is no benefit to be had by indicating you are not looking to add offense, unless you are not looking to add offense. In that case, you could put that out there in an effort to dampen fan expectation. The Santana situation is different. No matter what Omar may have said in public, all the rumblings had the Mets in the mix for Santana from the get-go. This time, we have no rumors, no rumblings, no activity at all. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM I'm sure Minaya has said more or less the same. dgwphotography Dec 18 2008 02:00 PM he he - Edgy put "ass" and "hole" in the subject... I would say that my most pressing concern is 2nd base - Castillo killed us in every possible way last year. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:11 PM ="HahnSolo":2hrybrte]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:2hrybrte] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:16 PM The issue with Hudson would be that signing him costs still more drafts next year. I am by no means a supporter of Castillo -- I was against signing him way back when he was good, even -- but if we just left him there and he was healthy I am CAHNfident he'll have a better year. I can't say that about any other player in the lineup 'cept maybe Church, and even then, I ain't sure. So yeah, the answer is left field, or if we trade Church, right field. Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2008 02:24 PM Marty Noble, for what it's worth, is quite happy with the Mets in left field. (He was talking about it on Hot Stove Report a couple of weeks ago.) He likes platoons, and he thinks the Mets have it in the proper balance, with the older player being right-handed and not playing as often, and the younger guy being a lefty and getting more at bats. He thinks they'll be solid in left. I hope he's right. But it seems to me there's more than a decent chance that Tatis will decline and that Murphy's 2008 success won't carry over. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:36 PM Shane and Karim but me off of platooning a little. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:38 PM If one platoon works, how about two? Burrell can platoon with Murphy and/or Church. It would mean fewer starts for Tatis, but allows him to be the primary RH pinch-hitter we need and more of a 3B/RF/LF backup to all 3. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 02:44 PM My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright. HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:46 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":xjjhr5lh]="HahnSolo":xjjhr5lh]Is there any market for Hudson. I don't see his name linked to too many teams. Actually, the only place I usually see his name is from Mets fans who want Luis out and him in. Just wondering that if there's not much market, then maybe it doesn't cost as much in years and dollars. The hideous Castillo contract haunts us some more.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] I got curious (no, not like Marv Albert did!) and checked Google News to see if there are any rumors about any teams bidding for Hudson. A quick glance at the results shows casual interest from the Yankees and Washington and strong interest from San Francisco and Cleveland, but both the Giants and Indians stories are almost a month old by now.[/quote:xjjhr5lh] Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? HahnSolo Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM ="Edgy DC":1nhltiet]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:1nhltiet] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2008 02:48 PM I suppose if you bring in Burrell you play him most days and mostly in left. Then Murph could challenge either Church or Castillo. The other thing we gotta think about is first base in 2010 -- not many good FA's coming to market then, unless you count Delgado, so maybe this year's left fielder is next year's first baseman. That also looks maybe like a Burrell kinda job. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:37 PM 1B - we have relatively lower dollars tied up in all the other "trouble" positions, and if in-season moves are necessary, we won't be paralyzed by budgetary constraints to fix any of them, unlike our $12m 1bman. Also, none of the other positions are being counted on for middle-of-the-order production. So, if Delgado's 1st half becomes the first 2/3 of the 2009 season, it'll be hard for the Mets to come back. If his 1st half is replicated for the entire 2009 season, we're cooked. Vic Sage Dec 18 2008 03:51 PM ]Speaking of Cleveland, didn't someone here, in the last offseason, advocate going after Josh Barfield and Kelly Shoppach in a trade? that sounds like me. I'm surprised Barfield has not developed, but Shoppach sure showed some punch last year. Centerfield Dec 18 2008 08:05 PM From ESPN: The Red Sox, too, have bid aggressively, after having quietly targeted the switch-hitting, Gold-Glove caliber first baseman throughout this entire offseason. Teixeira, who turns 29 next April, has been among the most consistent hitters in the majors in recent years, thriving when he was traded to contenders twice in consecutive years -- first, in 2007, to the Braves, and then in 2008, to the Angels. Teixeira batted .358 in 54 games for the Angels, with 13 homers and 43 RBIs. When the Angels met the Red Sox in the postseason, Teixeira batted .467 with four walks in four games. If the Red Sox complete the negotiations for Teixeira, they presumably would shift Kevin Youkilis -- who finished third in the AL MVP voting in 2008 -- to third base, and look to deal veteran third baseman Mike Lowell, who is under contract through 2 010. The Red Sox have gauged the market enough to know that they can find a suitable deal for Lowell, if necessary. Boston may decide to keep Lowell into spring training, until they get a read on how effective Ortiz will be going into this season. The Red Sox became increasingly concerned about the quality of the middle of their lineup through the 2008 season, as David Ortiz struggled to come back from a wrist injury and after Manny Ramirez was traded. Is there any question that if Omar were the Sox GM, he would talk about how they are "set" at first and third? For the record, the Red Sox beat the Mets in just about every offensive category. I realize that there's that DH thing, but the Sox were second only to Texas in runs scored in the AL. They could have easily used that "we scored enough runs last year" logic if they so chose. Edgy DC Dec 18 2008 08:37 PM Proof in pudding. Actions will speak. smg58 Dec 19 2008 05:25 AM For starters, the Red Sox are currently talking as though they've been seriously outbid. 8 years and $200M for Teixeira is looking likely. In addition, with a few third baseman on the market who won't make $24M over the next two years, will not cost players, and are not injury risks, don't assume that the Sox can sell Lowell for more than pennies on the dollar. The Mets would be in a similar position with Delgado; if teams looking for a DH/1B can get a year of Giambi for less money and no players, or three years of Dunn for less money per year and no players, pennies on the dollar is the most you can hope for. And that has to be factored into the final bill for Teixeira. And the Red Sox don't need more pitching as badly as the Mets, either. We need to add another lefty reliever, and right now we have two spots in the rotation to fill with only one rookie who's likely a year away in any position to fill one of them. metirish Dec 19 2008 07:14 AM Red Sox owner said in an email to reporters that they went to Dallas to meet with Texeria and Boras and quickly realized that they would not be a factor despite offering $160 million for eight years. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 07:48 AM They did a similar act with Dice-K before they wound up with him. Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 08:16 AM ="HahnSolo":sx1dmk2j]="Edgy DC":sx1dmk2j]My thinking is to bring in Burrell, get Tatis and Murphy at bats where they can, until on of those dubious positions gets all FUBARred and those guys are brought in to shore it up, and, if workable, steal it outright.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd like some quality bats and some quality depth. Burrell, sounds good to me. But lets make sure we have insurance if/when Church/Castillo/Castro, et al get hurt. The last three seasons it seems that thanks to injuries guys are getting more ABs with us than they should.[/quote:sx1dmk2j] I'd say it's like that every year. Centerfield Dec 19 2008 11:21 AM ="Edgy DC":3a6v80an]Proof in pudding. Actions will speak.[/quote:3a6v80an] They've already acted. They don't have to actually land Texiera to act in the manner I want the Mets to act in. By exploring their opportunities, recognizing a valuable asset, gauging the market for Lowell, they've already done exactly what I've been saying Omar should do. If they get outbid, so be it. At least they've demonstrated an ability to be creative and not get boxed in with conventional thinking. They recognized how special Texiera was as a player. They recognized that, despite impressive offensive numbers last year, that the middle of their lineup could use upgrading. They did not allow that fact that they have players locked in at those positions prevent them from making a run at Texeira. And if, after all that, they get outbid, so be it. At least they tried. My point this whole offseason is that the Mets should have tried to make a run at him. They should have explored the market for Delgado. Even if they get nothing back for Carlos other than dumping his salary, and if they can find a taker for Schneider (Red Sox rumored to be interested), then that frees up $18 million. Backload an 8 year, 160 million dollar deal and that adds no additional payroll. It does not prevent them from pursuing a pitcher or three. Is there anyone on earth that wouldn't rather have a combination of Texiera/Castro rather than Delgado/Schneider? If that's the case, why not try? Edgy DC Dec 19 2008 12:22 PM I'm referring, I think it's clear in my tense, to the team having a full off-season in which to continue to pursue players. Do we really need more leaks out of Metland as proof of adminstrative action? Nymr83 Dec 19 2008 02:58 PM The proof will be in the roster that takes the field April 1st, at which time I'll criticize Omar (or praise him) for his roster moves, meanwhile he should keep his hand close to his chest.

I went with First Base. I think second base and catcher will be our least productive, but first base concerns me the most because it seems like Omar is banking on Delgado being a middle-of-the-lineup run producer. If he sucks, we're in trouble.

Meanwhile Omar has a look that seems to say "This shit had better work or I'm gonna end up bantering with Kruk on Baseball Tonight."

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":170vo8hy]I could not have been any more tuned out to what was happening to the Mets while they went through this period. I really thought I had broken up with baseball for good.[/quote:170vo8hy] Yup. Edgy DC Dec 16 2008 02:53 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 16 2008 02:55 PM That Marcus Lawton in Matt Lawton's older brother, correct? OE: Yup. UMDB take note. Benjamin Grimm Dec 16 2008 02:54 PM This is interesting: ]Individual game tickets for all Mets regular-season home games will go on sale at 9 A.M. Tuesday and can be purchased at Shea Stadium. Prices have been reduced to $5 for box seats and $4 and $2 for reserved seats. Tickets can be returned for a two-thirds rebate if the club starts the season with replacement players. So they reduced the ticket price knowing demand would be low, with a possibility of an additional rebate. I didn't go to any games in 1995. In fact, I went to zero games between 1995 and 1998. But I guess some fans got a pretty good deal: field level boxes for $5. And they didn't have to see replacement players. Benjamin Grimm Dec 16 2008 02:55 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":28qvk4n7]I could not have been any more tuned out to what was happening to the Mets while they went through this period. I really thought I had broken up with baseball for good.[/quote:28qvk4n7] I never thought I was done with baseball, but I did become a whole lot less interested. And still, 14 years later, my full interest hasn't returned. And at this point it's safe to say it won't. A Boy Named Seo Dec 16 2008 02:56 PM I'd forgotten or didn't know Sisk came back for that. Weren't Agbayani and Reed replacements? Benny was for the Mets, but was Reed also? OlerudOwned Dec 16 2008 02:57 PM http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/1995/03/06/1995-03-06_fans_are_hitched_to_mets__wa.html An article all about Bubba, written by current annoying NY Rangers studio host John Giannone. ]FANS ARE HITCHED TO METS' WAGNON LANDSCAPER STANDS OUT IN FIELD By JOHN GIANNONE Monday, March 6th 1995, 3:63AM PORT ST. LUCIE He is one of the poster boys for replacement baseball. Not the paunchy, worn-out former big-league version who is trying to capture one last moment in the sun. Rather, the freckle-faced, wide-eyed, diminutive ex-college player who couldn't help but leap at the chance to get one taste of the big time. Meet Marty (Bubba) Wagnon, ReplaceMet second baseman. Yes, Bubba Wagnon, a Birmingham landscaper who has energized the past week of an otherwise tedious Met camp with his spunky, thousand-miles-an-hour work ethic. "He has tremendous enthusiasm for the game," coach Frank Howard said. "Guys like that really lighten things up." How else can you explain Wagnon, 27, being offered a replacement contract on the very day he was picked off first base . . . and second base . . . and thrown out at home during a safety squeeze during a game-situation intrasquad scrimmage? "He's a pepper pot, I'll tell you that," coach Mike Cubbage said. "He might be a throwback, an old-time player. He can be a legend in this (replacement) league. You can't help but like the guy. He's a real fan-pleaser." It took the Mets' spring fans exactly one game to unofficially adopt the 5-9 whirling dervish. Chants of "Bubba, Bubba" were heard each time Wagnon came to bat or made a defensive play in Saturday's exhibition opener, a 2-1 loss to the Yankees. It didn't matter, at least for one game, that Wagnon struck out twice and stranded runners in scoring position. His exuberance won over fans, coaches, teammates and a contingent of media that came to Wagnon's side throughout the day. Saturday's game was broadcast on WWOR-TV, marking the first time Wagnon has been on television. And since the Wagnon family doesn't have that station on cable at home, the event provided the Wagnon family and friends an excuse to spend the day at a Birmingham watering hole. It was the first time Wagnon appeared in a uniform other than his landscaping garb since he graduated from Montevallo (Alabama) University in 1990. "I'm just having the time of my life, this is unbelievable," Wagnon said in an almost unintelligible Southern drawl. "I don't know if it has all hit home yet. It's just amazing being around everybody you've only heard about and everything they have here." Wagnon came to the Mets' attention through minor-league pitching coach Bill Latham, who attended the same high school as the co-owner of B&B Landscaping (Bubba and Bubba we didn't make this up). And with the shortage of infielders on the ReplaceMets, Wagnon and Met scouting assistant Tom Allison suddenly became hot commodities and now comprise the replacement double-play combination. "I've always wanted this," Wagnon said of his 15 minutes of baseball fame. "I went to a Dodger camp and a Kansas City Royals camp in Alabama but nothing came from it. So the past four years I've been in the landscaping business. "Believe me, this is much better than cutting grass." G-Fafif Dec 16 2008 02:59 PM One more from NYT: ]Joe McIlvaine had never heard of Chris Walpole. Neither had Gerry Hunsicker, the Mets' assistant vice president of baseball operations. More than likely, Manager Dallas Green still cannot match the name to the face. A 26-year-old third baseman, Walpole was never drafted by a major league club and has never played in any team's system. His professional baseball career is limited to 25 games with the independent Thunder Bay Whiskey Jacks, who play in the Class A Northern League. Still, he was signed to be a Mets replacement player, sight unseen. In Walpole's case, a contract was tendered at the recommendation of Drew Marino, his friend and a Mets statistician. Marino briefed the Mets on Walpole's abilities, his history and his health. And, in the end, the Mets probably know as much -- and, in some cases, more -- about Walpole than they do about the other 27 players they have signed to replacement player contracts. "It wasn't a really scientific process," said McIlvaine, the Mets' general manager. "We did not have the time." Of the 28 replacement players in the Mets' camp, four were signed by area scouts who gave them individual workouts. Eight came from the club's official tryout camps. Six more came to Shea Stadium and worked out for McIlvaine or another Met executive. Nine were signed sight unseen. And one -- Dave Jensen -- simply showed up on the first day of camp, banking on his past history in the Mets' minor league system. Jensen threw for Greg Pavlick, the Mets' pitching coach. Two days later, he had a deal. "Normally, when you sign somebody to a contract, what you do is all but live with that kid for a while," McIlvaine said. "You know everything about his family, his friends, his background. You do a detective's job. That wasn't possible this time." With barely a month to unearth and sign approximately 30 replacement players, the Mets did what most clubs had to do -- they gambled. Making a player's baseball experience their No. 1 priority, the Mets took players without knowing about their emotional makeup or personal background or, in some cases, physical condition. What the Mets ended up with, then, is one of the more experienced replacement teams -- 10 players in camp have played at the major league level. They also have a substantial number of players who were once in their own system, which means that someone in the organization generally knows a bit of their background. Like Walpole, though, many of the others can be virtual unknowns. And the lack of knowledge is often greater than the simple inability to tell Chris Walpole apart from Chuck Wacha, who was called "Chris" by one coach the first few days of camp. Until informed by a reporter, Mets executives were unaware that one replacement player had been facing child molestation charges when signed and was not acquitted until the day before he was scheduled to report to camp. That's an extreme case, of course, but the potential public relations damage risked by the Mets in that instance is just one example of how much clubs have gambled in the world of replacement baseball. The medical risks alone are enormous. After all, teams are depending on players who are, on average, older and in poorer physical condition than players the teams would normally have in camp, but they are still financially liable for any injuries a replacement player might sustain. "Certainly, when you have older players, the injury factor generally rises, so it's a big risk," McIlvaine said. "If something happens, we'd be responsible to fix it up and deal with any rehabilitation. And, believe me, Major League Baseball is not standing in line, waiting to reimburse us for the cost." INSIDE PITCH The Mets should not have to worry about sympathetic unions picketing outside Thomas J. White Stadium once they start playing spring training games. According to DAVE HOWARD, the Mets' general counsel, a St. Lucie County ordinance prohibits picketing on county property. The Mets' spring training facilities are built on county land. . . . Minor league position players report on Tuesday and should swell the number of players in camp to 90 or more. . .. Rain forced the club to cut short workouts Monday afternoon. G-Fafif Dec 16 2008 03:00 PM ="A Boy Named Seo":2bkvwmj9]I'd forgotten or didn't know Sisk came back for that. Weren't Agbayani and Reed replacements? Benny was for the Mets, but was Reed also?[/quote:2bkvwmj9] Reed went to camp with the Reds. Thought he'd be throwing for scouts, wound up in games. G-Fafif Dec 16 2008 03:02 PM ="Benjamin Grimm"]This is interesting: ]Individual game tickets for all Mets regular-season home games will go on sale at 9 A.M. Tuesday and can be purchased at Shea Stadium. Prices have been reduced to $5 for box seats and $4 and $2 for reserved seats. Tickets can be returned for a two-thirds rebate if the club starts the season with replacement players. So they reduced the ticket price knowing demand would be low, with a possibility of an additional rebate. I didn't go to any games in 1995. In fact, I went to zero games between 1995 and 1998. But I guess some fans got a pretty good deal: field level boxes for $5. And they didn't have to see replacement players. The Mets did two-for-ones early in the season once they came back. Buy a ticket to a game in May, get another for later in the season. Plus concessions (hot dogs, soda and such) were half-price. Everything felt very reasonable after the most unreasonable period in modern times. G-Fafif Dec 16 2008 03:06 PM Numerical tidbit from News: ]Numbers Game: Nine ReplaceMets claimed uniform numbers of striking Mets. They are: P Brent Knackert (28 from Bobby Jones); P Alex Coghen (31 from John Franco); P Doug Sisk (39 from Josias Manzanillo); P Kevin Hickey (33 from Kelly Stinnett); C Kevin Carroll (6 from Joe Orsulak); 1B Rich Wieligman (12 from Jeff Kent); IF Wagnon (9 from Todd Hundley); 3B Chris Walpole (25 from Bobby Bonilla), and Thornton (20 from Ryan Thompson). G-Fafif Dec 16 2008 03:09 PM Continuing to fill out the non-existent roster (courtesy of News): ]ReplaceMets fell to 0-8 yesterday and remain baseball's only winless team in spring training with 9-2 loss to Reds at Plant City. In an effort to try something new and give beleaguered subs a day off, Dallas Green started seven minor leaguers. Minor league P Eric Ludwig and truck driver Alex Coghen were tagged for eight runs in sixth inning as Reds batted 12 men. . Oft-injured ex-big league 3B Chris Brown was acquired from Tigers before game and went 2-for-4. . . . The total of Met minor leaguers who have committed to play in exhibition games stands at 27 of 61 (44%). When ReplaceMet 3B Chris Walpole headed home to Bronx three days ago, Mets weren't sure they believed his excuse about his boss demanding he return to work as special education teacher at Truman High. "He had no credibility with us from the day he arrived," said one member of Met brass. Walpole, remember, found his way onto Met roster after he fabricated story about stint with Thunder Bay Whiskey Jacks. HahnSolo Dec 16 2008 03:20 PM The same Chris Brown who last I heard was working for a contractor driving a truck in Iraq. Not the job to "sleep wrong on your eye". G-Fafif Dec 16 2008 03:25 PM This is far more interest in who played for the 1995 ReplaceMets than I had in 1995 when I looked away about as hard as I could (though I was back like a Pavlovian pup once the strike ended). Roster of sorts, based on the above articles and chat, of those who wore Mets uniforms and played in those games or at least were in camp as something approximating Mets: Benny Agbayani Tom Allison Chris Brown Alex Coghen Benny Distefano Mike Eberle Cliff Gonzalez Kevin Hickey Stanley Jefferson Dave Jensen Kirk Killingsworth Brent Knackert Marcus Lawton Eric Ludwig Doug Sisk Lou Thornton Chuck Wacha Bubba Wagnon Chris Walpole Rich Wieligman Fman99 Dec 16 2008 04:02 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3p5qotfb]I could not have been any more tuned out to what was happening to the Mets while they went through this period. I really thought I had broken up with baseball for good.[/quote:3p5qotfb] Yep. Same here, though I dropped out before the strike, when the Mets went in the tank in '92-93. I was in college, they weren't on TV up there and I had other priorities. Picked it up again for real in '96-97 when I moved to Watertown. There really isn't anything else to do up there besides watch baseball.

It was me. I had some extra money lying around and I figured, "Oh what the hell."

This is how unfair the life of a relief pitcher is. I can't come up with one positive memory of Schoeneweis (though I realize many should be there). Always seemed to take it like a man after bad outings.

This team needs to come out next year showing some sack with a "Fuck the World" attitude. I'd like to see the Mets play up their celebrations when they're playing the Phils. I would like to see a full marching band waiting in the bullpen that will come out and perform a Sousa march after every home run. Even if it costs us 15 yards. (Merged from Antics, Part II, 12/23/2008)

Ibanez basically replaces Burrell's production. Meaning the Phils will return a very similar lineup to last year's. Mark Texiera still available.

What I'll remember is that it wasn't even his best catch. It might have been the most spectacular, at the most crucial of moments, but my favorite Endy catches are the ones headed toward the gap, where you curse the moment it's hit, only to find that when the camera switches to the outfielders, Endy is already tracking it making you wonder if he got his jump before the batter started his swing. The way he would catch in stride with that glove that appeared bigger than his head. He also had a cannon for an arm. If I remember correctly, he gunned down A-Rod in that famous Friday night 2006 game against the MFY's.

="TransMonk":1ajjkucg]="Benjamin Grimm":1ajjkucg]Putz is likely a one-year Met.[/quote:1ajjkucg] Agreed, although factoring the money going to Wagner in 2009, the 8th and 9th innings will still be cheaper for them in 2010 if they kept Putz. Wagner + KRod + Putz = $24 million in 2009. Prolly more than the Marlins payroll will be.[/quote:1ajjkucg] The Wagner money really gets under my skin. I really wonder if they had to go four years to get him in the first place. I wish they could find some use for him in 2009 and save money somewhere else. Can he make copies? File papers? Maybe he could work a ticket booth or something. Edgy DC Dec 11 2008 11:17 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Dec 11 2008 11:51 AM ="Centerfield":7x6t2mcj]The Wagner money really gets under my skin. I really wonder if they had to go four years to get him in the first place.[/quote:7x6t2mcj] It's a little late to get too animated about that, but the Wagner deal came shortly after the O's gobbled up B.J. Ryan for five years and $47 million. It's not a cheap game to play. Just be happy that the money dropped on him in this fourth year didn't prevent the Mets from reloading with Rodriguez and Putz. Benjamin Grimm Dec 11 2008 11:19 AM Well, obviously they'll see how 2009 goes first. As for Wagner, there was a report out the other day that his recovery is going well and he may actually be able to pitch in September of 2009. Vic Sage Dec 11 2008 11:42 AM I'm sure he'll want to, to prove he can and set the stage for a new contract ... from somebody. However, if the mets actually need him to pitch in September, that may be a bad sign as to how the new pen had done. Gwreck Dec 11 2008 11:48 AM ="Vic Sage":3roqbbwa]However, if the mets actually need him to pitch in September, that may be a bad sign as to how the new pen had done.[/quote:3roqbbwa] You wouldn't want Wagner as your situational lefty pitcher instead of Feliciano or Schoeneweis? 86-Dreamer Dec 11 2008 03:19 PM I like the trade. But I am a bit scared by the fact that Putz actually had worse WHIP in 2008 (1.597) than the man he is replacing (1.592). But then I look at his 2006 & 2007 seasons and get excited again. Lets hope he is healthy. metsmarathon Dec 11 2008 04:10 PM of course, how was heilman's '06 and '07? i'm just sayin... but overall i like the trade. and i'm surprised we don't yet have a poll asking me that question. metirish Dec 11 2008 06:27 PM ] "It's a new challenge and I'm excited about it," Putz told the Seattle Times. "I'm going to a new team that's going to be very competitive. Frankie's a great closer and with Sean Green going as well, we should have a great bullpen." Willets Point Dec 11 2008 06:58 PM Putz is perhaps the first Mets relief pitcher to come with a built-in derogatory nickname for when he blows a save. Edgy DC Dec 11 2008 08:17 PM Ah, but you're too young to recall Alain LeDouche. Those were ze days, mon ami. metirish Dec 14 2008 11:25 AM ] Mets now have terrific twosome in 'pen By Jayson Stark ESPN.com LAS VEGAS -- The New York Mets of 2008 didn't just have a closer problem. They had a bullpen problem. The Mets of 2008 didn't just have a ninth-inning problem. They had a how-the-heck-do-we-get-to-the-ninth-inning problem. Well, not anymore. Now, after a stunning 12-player, three-team, winter meetings megadeal Wednesday night, the Mets have transformed their bullpen and transformed themselves. J.J. Putz and Francisco Rodriguez aren't merely an upgrade on Luis Ayala and Duaner Sanchez/Aaron Heilman/Scott Schoeneweis/insert your favorite other Mets setup villain here. J.J. Putz and K-Rod are an upgrade on everybody's eighth-and-ninth-inning bullpen-assassin combo. Who beats that tag team? "Nobody," said one longtime talent evaluator Wednesday night. "To me, they're the best. And they're not just a great duo. They're a strikeout duo, too. There won't be many balls in play when those two guys are out there. As big as strikeouts are in the ninth inning, sometimes they're even bigger in the eighth." True facts: K-Rod averaged 10.14 strikeouts per nine innings this season. Putz, even in a down year, averaged 10.88 whiffs per nine innings. And that was in the American League, where the lineups run nine deep. Only two National League teams had a closer-setup combo in which each pitcher racked up that high a punch-out rate in 2008 -- the Cubs (Kerry Wood/Carlos Marmol) and the Dodgers (Takashi Saito/Jonathan Broxton/Hong-Chih Kuo). Not coincidentally, those staffs ranked third and first, respectively, in the league in bullpen ERA. But now Wood is gone in Chicago. Saito is hurt in L.A. And it's the Mets who have assumed the throne. We asked around Wednesday night in a lobby packed with baseball people. Nobody could come up with an eighth-inning/ninth-inning combo as formidable as the Mets' new twosome. The reason is simple. As long as these two are healthy, there isn't a better tandem. "They can play a 21-out game now," the same evaluator said of the Mets. "I give them a lot of credit. They just made a $13 million investment [in K-Rod], and now they've bolstered it with a character guy whose character is so good, he'll be willing to pitch the eighth inning." Putz, of course, will have to be healthier than he was in 2008, when his 3.88 ERA was nearly triple his 1.38 mark in '07. But if he is, he changes the Mets' whole persona. Just consider the bullpen disaster that did in this team this season: The Mets were 13th in the league in ERA from the seventh inning on and 13th in bullpen ERA overall. They blew 29 saves -- second most in the National League, behind St. Louis. They gave up 61 home runs from the seventh inning on, tied with the Giants for the most in the league. And those aren't even the most devastating numbers that defined the Mets' season. Consider these numbers: If all games had ended after six innings this season, the Mets would have finished the year 11 games ahead of the Phillies (aka, the team that won the World Series). If all games had ended after seven innings, the Mets would have finished six games ahead of the Phillies. And if all games had even been just eight innings long instead of nine, the Mets would have finished five games ahead of the Phillies. But the rules are the rules. And the rules say they had to play all nine. And it was those final innings that crushed the Mets. The Phillies lost no games they led after eight innings. The Mets lost seven of them -- and lost 13 games they led after seven innings. That's how seasons slip away. That's how one fatal flaw can undermine everyone and everything. That was the story of the 2008 Mets. So one miraculous trade later, this doesn't just look like a whole new bullpen. It looks like a whole new team. Rockin' Doc Dec 14 2008 11:38 AM "If all games had ended after six innings this season, the Mets would have finished the year 11 games ahead of the Phillies (aka, the team that won the World Series). If all games had ended after seven innings, the Mets would have finished six games ahead of the Phillies. And if all games had even been just eight innings long instead of nine, the Mets would have finished five games ahead of the Phillies." Wow, those are pretty telling stats. I knew the bullpen was costly last season, but those facts really point out just how costly the bullpen actually was. Valadius Dec 14 2008 02:28 PM I warned about the bullpen all last offseason. I figured it would happen again. Frayed Knot Dec 14 2008 02:37 PM ="Rockin' Doc":2m19qgyh]"If all games had ended after six innings this season, the Mets would have finished the year 11 games ahead of the Phillies (aka, the team that won the World Series). If all games had ended after seven innings, the Mets would have finished six games ahead of the Phillies. And if all games had even been just eight innings long instead of nine, the Mets would have finished five games ahead of the Phillies."[/quote:2m19qgyh] The pen was obviously the biggest culprit in those above scenarios although the offense's habit of scoring more early than late contributed as well. The net effect was to make the pen look even worse than it really was by removing any margin of error and turning every run given up into a disaster. metirish Dec 14 2008 02:51 PM Yet Miniya thinks the offense was fine last season From the Hot Stove December 11th ] Minaya on getting more offense. Quote: "Before I start moving my dollars to offense, I have to move my dollars to pitching," the GM said."Last year was very simple guys. We had 20 blown saves. We scored the runs." Edgy DC Dec 14 2008 05:13 PM In general, it was fine. It was just disproportionately better in the front end of games, contributing to some of those numbers. Ashie62 Dec 14 2008 06:27 PM I remeber several years ago the Mets were dumoing on the Rockies Mike DeJean and McCarver said "well this inning is in De Jean" TransMonk Dec 18 2008 12:40 PM I have to say, the more I hear from J.J., the more I like him. And, I was pretty impressed to begin with. Frayed Knot Dec 19 2008 12:16 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 19 2008 12:30 PM How do you solve a problem like Putz? John Branch (never heard of him) at the NYTimes looks into the origin, Hungarian; proper pronunciation, 'Puts'; and the potential pitfalls for headline writers concerning the new set-up man. The Mets solved the problem of his introduction by boldly printing on the scoreboard: 'Mets Welcome J.J.' metirish Dec 19 2008 12:24 PM Putz said yesterday that he might ask Hojo for #20. metirish Dec 19 2008 12:59 PM ="Frayed Knot"]How do you solve a problem like Putz? John Branch (never heard of him) at the NYTimes looks into the origin, Hungarian; proper pronunciation, 'Puts'; and the potential pitfalls for headline writers concerning the new set-up man. The Mets solved the problem of his introduction by boldly printing on the scoreboard: 'Mets Welcome J.J.' Interesting that Bill Sweeney the headline writer over at the Snooze is not looking at Putz as a headline opportunity. metsguyinmichigan Dec 19 2008 01:17 PM They're probably not going to sell too many t-shirts with "Putz" on the back. And I don't like the wide soul patch. But I have to tell you, dude is saying all the right things. This might up being Omar's best move of the off-season. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 01:31 PM What's encouraging is to hear some good things about Sean Green who came along with Putzy in the deal. Putz in the Snooze today called Green "a machine" and sincerely sounded like a strong endorsement, and Keith Law of ESPN called him the 4th most important acquisition of the winter in all of bb (behind CC, K-Rod and JJ, saying he'd be to the Mets as valuable as Bradford in 06. Benjamin Grimm Dec 19 2008 02:06 PM That would be good if Sean Green ends up being a solid bullpenner. I am glad the Mets got Putz, but I do regret losing Joe Smith for one year of Putz. So I do hope Green can contribute in 2010 and beyond. A Boy Named Seo Dec 19 2008 02:38 PM That 70/30 talk seemed kind of unecessary. Like a bone that didn't need to be thrown Putz's way. But now it's out there and expectations are kind of attached to it. Hope it doesn't bite Jerry's arse down the road. smg58 Dec 19 2008 03:02 PM If the Mets get 100 save opportunities, a 70/30 split will work out to everybody's satisfaction. Green was terrific for the first four months last year, but 58 innings in four months was more than he could handle and he imploded in August and September. If his arm has recovered and they pace him for 65 or so innings, he could have a really good year. A Boy Named Seo Dec 19 2008 03:33 PM If we get 100 save opps, we're winning like 115 games anyway, so none of this will matter.

I thought he could have been a good starter. Remember, most of those starts he made were before he moved his arm angle back down. Coming out of college the Mets fucked with his delivery depriving him of some of his natural movement. I always thought he was an appearance or two from getting straightened out in in 2008. Mostly because the stuff was there. Alas he didn't. So he sucked. Before that, he was pretty good though. You obviously can't get through this thread without mentioning Yadier Molina, but I also remember thinking that it was the right call to go to him at the time (tie game in the ninth, choosing him over Wagner). That says something about the season he had been having. He had a sourpuss face, and seemed to pout after bad outings that made him really easy to dislike. But afterwards, would say all the right things so I would be reminded how wrong impressions can be. I thought he got screwed by the Mets when they moved his arm angle. And I imagine it was hard for him to not blow a gasket when the Mets were not giving him a shot at starting when they were trotting out the likes of Brandon Knight and Chan Ho Park. I think Ben Grimm even got a spot start in 2006. But through it all he played the role of a good teammate. Fans treated him like shit. But fans being douchebags is nothing new. I'll miss Aaron. I think he will have a great 2009.

="seawolf17":30mm7xcs]Fucking hell, Frod. 17 is Keith Fucking Hernandez's number. Take 77 and like it.[/quote:30mm7xcs] DAE. SUNG. KOO. metirish Dec 10 2008 02:18 PM Mr. Koo did that number proud. Zvon Dec 10 2008 02:59 PM I like this. Can't feel the love for it until I see what he does for us. I learned a long time ago not to throw my heart around like that. Landing a real closer was my number one concern, and its been addressed. The deal is at a nice price and length. So I'm really liking this. G-Fafif Dec 10 2008 04:24 PM E-mail from mets.com says K-Rod goes for No. 75. Fman99 Dec 10 2008 08:04 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":ti8ow5qk]="Adam Rubin":ti8ow5qk]Las Vegas - Francisco Rodriguez was at the Hospital for Special Surgery in Manhattan Wednesday morning, undergoing a physical. There was no official word on K-Rod passing the physical, though the Mets hope to make an announcement within hours that he's cleared the medical hurdle. A press conference is expected to be held next Wednesday in New York. With Citi Field not ready to host press conferences, the location of next week's event is unclear. Rodriguez agreed to a three-year, $37 million deal Tuesday with a fourth-year vesting option based on games finished.[/quote:ti8ow5qk] They should all put on hardhats and have the press conference at what's left of Shea Stadium.[/quote:ti8ow5qk] You were close. Frank et al. were at the new park, but donning the Mets hardhats, which are damn foolish looking if you're not welding something. Big "Mets welcome K-Rod" sign at CitiField. They apparently aren't reading this thread. SteveJRogers Dec 10 2008 08:39 PM =Adam Rubin]A press conference is expected to be held next Wednesday in New York. With Citi Field not ready to host press conferences, the location of next week's event is unclear. Interesting. They can not host press conferences, but last September advertisements in the Mets program suggested that starting this winter, i.e. now, Citi Field would ready to be hosting "events" (corporate, weddings, whatever the heck they did at Shea) and were soliciting reservations. batmagadanleadoff Dec 11 2008 09:45 AM It's still Autumn. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 11 2008 09:50 AM May also have to do with communication-type stuff and broadcasting abilities coming in later than banquet rooms. Benjamin Grimm Dec 11 2008 09:53 AM I'm guessing they have to wait until Citi Field is no longer a hard-hat zone. metirish Dec 13 2008 12:46 PM K-Rod jumps right into Mets-Phillies rivalry BY KEN DAVIDOFF | ken.davidoff@newsday.com 12:53 PM EST, December 13, 2008 Francisco Rodriguez didn't even wait for his first save to jump into the war of words between the Mets and Phillies. In a telephone news conference today, K-Rod's first interaction with the New York media, the Mets' new closer proclaimed his confidence in his new teammates. "Of course we're going to be the frontrunner," Rodriguez told reporters. "Of course were going to be the team to beat. "I don't want there to be a controversy. I don't want the other team to take it personally, or take it in a bad way. But I'm a really competitive guy. I like to win. "If they ask me, "Who's going to be the ball club that will win the National League East, it'll be the Mets." "Team to beat" has become a well-known phrase in the Mets-Phillies rivalry. Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins first used the words to describe his team prior to the 2007 season, and Rollins proceeded to win the National League Most Valuable Player award as his team lived up to that proclamation. This past season, during spring training, the Mets' Carlos Beltran, usually soft-spoken, declared his club as the team to beat. The Mets couldn't quite make Beltran look good, giving up a mid-September divisional lead. On Thursday, Phillies ace Cole Hamels upped the ante when, on an interview with WFAN, he referred to the Mets as "choke artists." Rodriguez said that his velocity did drop in 2008, as many scouts and opponents observed, but that it happened because he was working in a new pitch, a changeup that proved effective. In 2009, he said, his velocity should return to the mid-90s now that he's more comfortable with the arm action needed to make his fastball and changeup look identical out of his hand. Ashie62 Dec 14 2008 06:25 PM On Thursday, Phillies ace Cole Hamels upped the ante when, on an interview with WFAN, he referred to the Mets as "choke artists." Well..he's not totally off base But I signed up for phillienation under a bogus ID and sent Chase Utley a less than friendly "get well" email. metirish Dec 17 2008 11:29 AM Looks like Barry Bonds. Mets introduce Rodriguez. metirish Dec 17 2008 01:56 PM > Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2008 02:03 PM He has "K-ROD" monogrammed into his shirts? Oh, brother. I'm afraid that nickname isn't going to go away any time soon. But, wow, don't Jeff and Jerry seem thrilled? You'd think a faulty bullpen caused them to miss the playoffs last season. metirish Dec 17 2008 02:08 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1i00hhby]He has "K-ROD" monogrammed into his shirts? Oh, brother. I'm afraid that nickname isn't going to go away any time soon. But, wow, don't Jeff and Jerry seem thrilled? You'd think a faulty bullpen caused them to miss the playoffs last season.[/quote:1i00hhby] That Jeff can smile like that after Dad got taken to the cleaners is admirable. I admire you Jeffy Wilpon , nothing stands in this mans way. Centerfield Dec 17 2008 02:08 PM Meanwhile Omar has a look that seems to say "This shit had better work or I'm gonna end up bantering with Kruk on Baseball Tonight." Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2008 02:12 PM Ain't dat the troof! My concern is that Omar is fixing last year's problem, which is well and good, but not addressing next year's problem. I don't like how he's standing pat on the offense. Sure, they scored a lot of runs last year, but guys like Delgado and Tatis are both one year older (actually, everyone is, but it's more of an issue with the old guys!) and we might also see decline from guys like Church and Castillo. themetfairy Mar 30 2009 10:58 AM I couldn't find the thread where we were discussing possible nicknames for our new closer. However, I was at the Modell's in Herald Square yesterday, and there was a lot of K-Rod 75 merchandise on display. metirish Mar 30 2009 11:01 AM One of the TV guys said that Rodriguez does not like or want to be called K-Rod...I think it was keith who said it....goes by Frankie..

Funny. The Matt McBride I know is one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet.

Sabathia won't exercise that opt-out clause if he truly wants to be a Yankee. And if he does, management won't take well to that. They will probably get really mad for at least three or four days before putting more money on the table.

I like when players act like badasses, not jackasses. I remember when Trevor Hoffman was in his prime, he used to have a steely demeanor about him. When he finished off a batter, he would walk off the mound displaying a confidence that made it seem like he never really considered it a possibility that anyone could hit him. I didn't even like that dismissal wave that Benitez did, and I think K-Rod goes way over the line. That being said, it is a game and you're supposed to have fun. Any opposing player getting too bent out of shape about home run trots or mound celebrations probably needs to chill. There are likely guys on his own team guilty of the same thing. I have no problem with the curtain calls, and I think the handshakes are fine as long as they are in the dugout.