Mex17

I believe that two things are primarily driving this. . . 1) Fred Wilpon is 81 years old. To me, that means that he is looking to make one more "last stand" to grab a ring before he leaves this Earth. As such, although it turned out that he was prepared to listen, he is not in a position to hand the reigns over to a guy from Tampa in order for him to holistically terraform the Mets into another, larger market, version of the Rays (as much as many of us, myself included, want to see that happen). He does not have the time to see that play out. Instead, he is bringing in a mega-agent to do mega deals involving mega players this winter. It might not work (as evidenced by the link below), but that is what they are going for. https://nypost.com/2018/10/27/union-head-mlb-players-worried-about-expected-mets-gm-pick/ 2) The ever present obsession with public perception is also at play here. They did not want to look like they were going down the "safe road" with an old scouting fossil such as Melvin or LaRocque. They knew that there was a clamoring for them to go outside the box and outside of their comfort zone. Hiring the agent accomplishes this (to them) while also satisfying the conditions of point #1.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I work in restaurant kitchens. If we have an ace server or well-regarded sommelier who seems to have a gift for flavor and a talent for cooking, he/she might be given a shot on the line, walking before he can run. He/she's NOT getting made a sous chef, much less exec chef, in charge of the entire back-of-house operation, even if he/she is a precocious learner, and is universally well regarded, and has made their way to the top of the heap in their neck of the restaurant's org chart. There are things he/she must learn-- or prove he/she knows-- firsthand before the mantle of leadership is entrusted to him/her. That's just how it's done in a professional organization. I mean, it's great that we've got a guy with the tools to do the job. But the ashheap of can't-miss-prospects-who-missed is full of toolsy guys' figurative remains, innit? I mean, just because you have a talented guy who wants to make a career left turn interested in your job-- however translatable his skill set may be-- doesn't mean he merits the top job in your organization, does it? (At least not over a younger, similarly-talented guy who's, y'know, DONE the job.) I think that you are underestimating what "Co-head of the baseball division at CAA Sports" means. For once, I might be in alignment with Frayed Knot here.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: As first reported by NorthJersey.com and the USA TODAY NETWORK New Jersey, the team's pool of candidates appears to be shrinking due to concerns by younger, analytics-oriented candidates that the team is not willing to be a forward-thinking organization. Team owner Fred Wilpon is not a big believer in analytics, and the Mets went against the analytics' staff recommendations last winter. https://www.northjersey.com/story/sports/mlb/mets/2018/10/05/ny-mets-interview-candidates-their-gm-opening-next-week/1536419002/ Maybe that's not a bad thing? We just had a season where there were more strikeouts than hits in MLB (I think for the first time ever). And, we are also at the same time watching game after game after game where guys flat out refuse to slap balls to the opposite field (or drag bunt down the line the opposite way) despite the opposition giving them easy hits due to these overexaggerated shifts. How much of this is due to the "analytics"? In spite of my deep mistrust of the Wilpons, maybe Fred is holding fast to the correct approach here?

This little tidbit from Martino on Metsblog. . . https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/what-to-expect-as-mets-quietly-begin-interviews-for-head-of-baseball-operations/296982278 "they are not necessarily looking for a general manager, but possibly for a president or executive vice president of baseball ops." There is a significant difference between "President" and "Executive Vice President". If they hire a President, that could mean that the person has more jizz in order to brush aside Jeffy. Either way, it's a higher title than what Alderson ever had. I honestly thought that he was EVP of Baseball Ops, but after looking at some old yearbooks, it turns out that all he ever was was GM. This could also mean that they are looking to give Ricco a title bump to GM while keeping him subordinate to the new hire.

That’s a Fred choice.

Would be the first woman AND the first Asian GM ever. That's a lot of pressure. Now add NY in general and having to turn around the Mets in particular to that mix. Dodger pedigree. Torre disciple.

We do this for players, why not potential GM's? Theo Epstein acolyte. Ran the Sawx for four seasons. Won a WS in 2013 but finished last the rest of the time. Drafted/developed a good crop of young players but whiffed on the Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez signings.

I think Machado signing anywhere to be a third baseman is a pipe dream, the guy has stated that he wants to play shortstop and he has the leverage. But. . . If you sign Machado as a shortstop, then Rosario becomes a trade chip, maybe a pretty big one that you can package others around to send to Miami for Realmuto.

It all hinges on who the GM is and what he or she decides to do with deGrom. Either you lock him up or you trade him. Either way, make the commitment and go for it. The "trade deGrom" option means that you also trade Wheeler along with whoever else you can move who is not under team control through 2021 at minimum. You sacrifice the next two seasons, wait out the Cespedes, Bruce, and Wright contracts, and stock up your minor leagues for another run starting in 2021. The "lock up deGrom" option means that you go into the market big time. No limits, but sensible based upon need. A version of that can look something like this. . . Nimmo-RF McNeil-2b Conforto-LF Jones-CF Bruce-1b Frazier-3b Grandal-c pitcher Rosario-ss deGrom Syndergaard Matz Wheeler Vargas Kimbrel Britton Gsellman Lugo Swarzak Zamora Smith Plawecki Lagares Flores Rivera Reinheimer

If Baby Boy Jeffy is ever forced by Manfred to sell once Daddy dies, Stuart Sternberg is going to be the guy.

Edgy MD wrote: Mean salaries between the National League and American League do not split meaningfully from year to year. Assuming that this data is accurate (I have no reason to believe that it is not), I still think that you are interpreting it in order to confirm your bias. Maybe the NL pitchers get compensated more because they appear more effective due to the luxury of pitching to the pitchers, and that throws off the mean? My view is that the MLBPA would (and should) be more concerned with higher salaries at the top. Why? Because if you can extend the careers of more name recognizable players, you attract more people to watch and attend the games. The heightened revenue from that will then drive up the mean. So the utility infielders and middle inning loogys benefit financially from the aging sluggers hanging on for a year or two more. Although none of that is directly related to the original point of the thread, which is that the way pitchers are used is a result of the fact that what MLB is getting from the amateur ranks is now fundamentally different as from decades past, which should result in a logic adjustment in kind with regard to the DH.

MFS62 wrote: Now convince the Players' Union and the agents. That should be an easy sell, they would absolutely want 15 more jobs for aging hitters. In my world, you offer DH across the board and 26-man active rosters in exchange for pace of play concessions along with less sabre rattling and collusion accusations on account of the free agent market not going your client's way every single time.

I know that this is a pretty traditionalist crowd, so I expect a lot of resistance, but let me lay out the logic here. For most of my baseball fandom I have been stanchly anti-DH, thinking of it as a blight on the "true game". All things being equal, I would still feel this way. All of those arguments on both sides have been played out. But I am also a realist, and as such, I cannot ignore how circumstances have changed over the last 30+ years. Back in the day, people would play multiple sports (football or track in the fall, basketball or wrestling in the winter, baseball in the spring) while maybe also doing other things in their lives (working on the family farm, serving in the military). That was when complete games (or going at least seven or eight innings) was the norm and bullpens were much smaller on account of much more "bullets" being left in the arms of pitchers on the major league level. Now, there is so much earning potential in the game if you make it, kids are now pushed to specialize early on. This leads to more pitches being thrown at younger ages prior to any sort of major league or even professional career, which is why "bullpening" is now a thing. Is there any way to change things back to the way they were on the youth level? If there is, MLB would certainly not be the point organization charged with making it happen. They could influence a few things on the fringes maybe, but for that to happen it would have to be more of an overall cultural change in the country and it would have to happen from the bottom up as opposed to top down, if it happens at all. All MLB can really do is react to the situation that it is being presented with. If arm micromanagement, strict innings limits and pitch counts, and bullpening is here to stay, then it stands to reason that you would want one less variable in the mix that could potentially muck things up. You probably don't want a pitcher's time at bat to influence carefully laid out plans with regard to when and how these pitchers are used and for how long each time out. This is why the DH is probably coming across the board, and it may be time. Another reason is that I also, for reasons separate from the logic that I presented above, think that the leagues are obsolete and are also going away. If there is only going to be a single "MLB" as opposed to the AL and NL, then you then need one standard set of rules. Were it not for all of the above (and the fact that the MLBPA would never stand for it), I would say that the standard ought to be the elimination of the DH across the board in favor of the "real" game. But that is not the real world. The flip side to all of this is that I think that we may be seeing more two-way players coming up in the years to come. Ohtani is already here and the Rays have a guy named Brendon McKay coming who is a top prospect as both a 1B and a LHP. Who knows, maybe you will see certain pitchers (such as Syndergaard) pinch hitting on their non pitching days more often in the years to come?

I want to take the forum's temperature on this. For personal reasons.

Not to be overtly morbid, but the next checkpoint on this will be when Fred comes to his natural earthly end. Fred may have some personal equity with Manfred and the rest of the owners that Jeff does not have and will not carry down to Jeff once Fred is gone. So, it's conceivable (although not verifiable) that they are just waiting the situation out due to respect for the elder Wilpon.

If I actually find myself starting to want the best homegrown players from the team that I root for to find a way to escape from said team for the betterment of themselves, is that bad?

Edgy MD wrote: Dominic Smith was credited with a successful sacrifice for Savannah in 2014, so he must've squared at least once. I'm just going off what Callaway said.

I have been kicking this around in my head as to how to view this. Where I land will primarily impact how I will perceive the prospects of this franchise in the years to come. On one hand, it has been pretty thoroughly documented how the Wilpons are the type of meddling owners who restrict the ability of an organization to succeed. Doubleday signed the checks and left Cashen alone and it worked. Then Fred was able to get control of 50% of the team (presumably because Doubleday received poor estate planning advice) and it began to not work, first as a slow drip, then as a cascade. On the other hand, it was Alderson who could not build a bullpen, completely eschewed defense, and relied too heavily on the "three true outcome" style towards offense. Alderson was the one who oversaw a minor league system where Dominic Smith never bunted even one time. So, if a new guy comes in with new ideas and new philosophies that are not the ones that Alderson had that did not work, can it work? Or is Jeff Wilpon's eternal presence the death knell for anything and everything? What say you?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The last GM the Mets hired came from outside the organization. And, as I stated earlier in this thread, even he could not overcome Baby Boy Jeffy's meddling. This is why I am bearish on this (moreso than I ever have been in 38 years of following this team).

Frayed Knot wrote: and yet you want them to not even consider anyone but the currently entrenched threesome. That's not what I said. Going outside is healthy, but I stand by my statement that quality people are going to want to shape the rebuild themselves rather than accept whatever it is that Riccinayachhardi leaves them as a result of a fire sale that takes place before they are even hired.

Frayed Knot wrote: "Conduct a through search for a new GM including people outside of the organization at the end of the season" and "Expect a flurry of creative activity at the trade deadline where no single player is safe" are wildly incongruent with one another. So the alternative then is what: to leave the roster untouched this year and/or only consider candidates already here? Yes. Because no self-respecting candidate from the outside is going to consider taking a rebuilding job after all of the major bullets have been fired prior to his opportunity to even interview. Anybody of worth is going to want to make major decisions such as trading deGrom or Syndergaard (or anybody else other than the guys heading into free agency this winter) for himself.

"Conduct a through search for a new GM including people outside of the organization at the end of the season" and "Expect a flurry of creative activity at the trade deadline where no single player is safe" are wildly incongruent with one another. So, naturally, both of these are exactly what the Wilpons have in mind.

Edgy MD wrote: Oh, and can we please move on from the Mike Barwis era? Never. Why? THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN!!!!!!

I think Alderson handled himself amazingly in the press conference. It's not easy to look your own mortality in the face, let alone having to do it in the public eye. The guy is a Marine, through and through. Now, as for as the future of the organization. . . The front office just became the Roman Senate, and that's not a good thing at all. Ricco, Ricciardi, and Minaya might all be nice guys and competent baseball men, but now they are all in the position where they are going to try and one-up and outmaneuver the other two in order to gain favor with Caesar. That is just the way this sort of thing goes when an organization (of any type) is set up this way. Remember when Charles Wang tried the front office with four guys having equal voices or the Jets for all those years under Hess when there was no clear-cut GM? Furthermore, when Caesar is a incompetent spoiled impetuous man-child, that makes it all the worse. Alderson was supposed to be the guy coming in from the outside at the behest if the Commissioner who had the gravitas to put baby in a corner and he could not do it. How can we expect anyone else to do it from among these three or even from the outside of the organization? I am 47 years old and have spent my entire life looking for the silver linings, the best case scenarios, and the implausible pathways towards ultimate success with regard to this baseball team. There is no fixing this.

Rules for being a true fan By Bill Simmons Loyalties Once you choose a team, you're stuck with that team for the rest of your life ... unless one of the following conditions applies: -Your team moves to another city. All bets are off when that happens. In fact, if you decided to turn off that sport entirely, nobody would blame you. -You grew up in a city that didn't field a team for a specific sport -- so you picked a random team -- and then either a.) your city landed a team, or b.) you moved to a city that fielded a team for that specific sport. For instance, one of my Connecticut buddies rooted for the Sixers during the Doctor J Era, then happened to be living in Orlando when the Magic came to town. Now he's a Magic fan. That's acceptable. -One of your immediate family members either plays professionally or takes a relevant management/coaching/front office position with a pro team. -You follow your favorite college star (and this has to be a once-in-a-generation favorite college star) to the pros and root for his team du jour ... like if you were a UNC fan for the past 20 years, and you rooted for the Bulls (because of MJ) and then the Raptors (because of Vince). Only works if there isn't a pro team in your area. -The owner of your favorite team treated his fans so egregiously over the years that you couldn't take it anymore -- you would rather not follow them at all then support a franchise with this owner in charge. Just for the record, I reached this point with the Boston Bruins about six years ago. When it happens, you have two options: You can either renounce that team and pick someone else, or you can pretend they're dead, like you're a grieving widow. That's what I do. I'm an NHL widow. I don't even want to date another team. So. . . it's there as an option.