Mex17

Lefty Specialist wrote: Ashie62 wrote: MFS62 wrote: Mex17 wrote: Does the Commissioner have the power to veto trades using the "best interests of baseball" clause? I just tried googling for the answer and saw nothing. I wondered the same thing. And also found nothing. Later A commish vetoed Charlie Finley's 70's attempt to sell player I believe. However I don't know about trades. The A's tried selling off Joe Rudi and Sal Bando and Bowie Kuhn put a stop to it. But now the commissioner is beholden to the owners, not to the game itself, so this'll go through without a glance. So there are 28 other owners out there who might not appreciate Jeter sending arguably the best player in the sport to his old team for a bag of balls, don't you think? I don't think that I am too far off in saying that, in the short to intermediate term, the integrity of the game is on the line here.

Does the Commissioner have the power to veto trades using the "best interests of baseball" clause? I just tried googling for the answer and saw nothing. I'm serious here. We don't know the players going back to Miami yet, but with that said, this cannot stand if it's going to be as lopsided as they say it is going to be. If I'm Manfred, I am telling both parties to find a way to get Judge in the deal or there is no deal.

d'Kong76 wrote: Mex17 wrote: Mex17 wrote: Plus, I thought the entire point of Stanton playing hardball with his no-trade clause was because he wanted to orchestrate getting closer to Southern California if not directly back to LA. Why would you think that? Because I have heard for years that he would prefer to be on the West Coast. But, in fairness, him being a dick to Jeter by vetoing the other deals with St. Louis and SF could also be in response to Jeter being a dick to him during this process. Up until last night, MLB wagering was on him becoming a Dodger. If this really turns out to be just a money thing it needs to be looked at closer by the commish's office. It's not in the best interest of baseball to have Mr. Yankee buy a baseball team and then months later 'selling' his best player to his former richer team. It stinks worse than three-day-old un-refrigerated Marlin carcass. It's like Cashman and Jeter did this last night in the bathtub over cocktails? And whatever happened to the notion that if you can't afford to do business in baseball you shouldn't own a team? Right, what if the Giant and Cardinal proposals were nothing more that a front that Jeter put out there to cover his tracks knowing that Stanton would veto those deals. Then he has an excuse by saying "Hey, I tried to send him somewhere else first." Alright, I'll take my tin foil hat off now. . .

Edgy MD wrote: Mex17 wrote: Plus, I thought the entire point of Stanton playing hardball with his no-trade clause was because he wanted to orchestrate getting closer to Southern California if not directly back to LA. Why would you think that? Because I have heard for years that he would prefer to be on the West Coast. But, in fairness, him being a dick to Jeter by vetoing the other deals with St. Louis and SF could also be in response to Jeter being a dick to him during this process.

Financial limitations or no financial limitations, St. Derek can still show some backbone and demand Judge (or Puig). He should get more than that, but at least that while also taking on at least one bad contract for a shorter term than what Stanton is owed.

Plus, I thought the entire point of Stanton playing hardball with his no-trade clause was because he wanted to orchestrate getting closer to Southern California if not directly back to LA. So then he denies a trade to San Francisco only to possibly accept one to New York?

For this to be fair trade, it would have to be Ellsbury/Judge/Torres or Ellsbury/Judge/Adams/Sheffield. From the Dodgers end, it would need to be at least Gonzalez/Puig/Buehler. Anything other than that and Jeter is a fucking moron, I don't care how financially strapped the Marlins are. And if he trades Stanton to the Yankees without getting Judge back he ought to be denied first ballot election to the HOF out of general principle for potentially throwing the entire sport out of whack for a decade in favor of his former team. There is not a Yankee fan that I know who would not tell me that the Mets would have to give up Conforto and Syndergaard if they wanted Stanton. Can you imagine those same people reacting to when a Yankee team that has both Stanton and Judge starts winning title after title (again)?

I am absolutely going to lose my shit if Stanton goes to the Yankees without them at least giving up Judge and Jeter is the one who pulls the trigger from the Marlins end.

a) Jeter is quickly proving that he is way out over his skis as a GM. Why would the Mariners get a guy who won a Gold Glove at second base two years ago only to throw him in centerfield? I know the player really has no offical "say" in the matter because he in under contract without a no trade clause, but as the team do you at least have a discussion with the player (or his agent) before making that type of move? c) If that is the price for Gordon, than I think that the Mets have enough to offer in order to get a good second baseman.

Isn't he out of minor league options now? I can only guess because for the life of me I cannot find anything on the internet that lists players who are out of options.

Mets and Tigers are reportedly talking. . . https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/mets-reportedly-have-preliminary-trade-talks-with-tigers-regarding-kinsler/262238758 Solid year in 2016 (including a Gold Glove), but his 2017 may be indicating his decline. Baseball Reference splits the baby between the two with regard to his 2018 projection. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kinslia01.shtml The interesting part of this to me is, since it would only be a one season commitment, they can do this and still have the option available to pursue Dozier or LeMahieu next winter. The poor season combined with the $11 million price tag should also mean that this would not be a back breaking deal with regard to who would be going back to Detroit. Do you take a gamble on a 36 year old having a comeback year?

https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/juan-lagares-is-working-with-jd-martinezs-turnaround-coach/262019946 There is no reason to be against this on it's face, it will either work or it won't. If it does work, that $9 million for next year which is potentially a contractual albatross now turns into team friendly control though 2020 when you factor in the option year.

MFS62 wrote: whiff on Hosmer, Santana, Morrison, and Alonso. Reynolds in particular is a little interesting since, as a righty, he might not totally block Smith. http://www.espn.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/30452 http://www.espn.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/28772 Whiff is an interesting choice of words, since Reynolds had piled up lots of strikeouts to go along with his home runs. but his OPS is still better than Moreland, and the fact that he hits righty would be a plus. And he has even played a little third base. Not a bad suggestion. Later You have to figure that some of the HRs and OPS is Colorado inflated though.

Mets considering giving Jacob deGrom a contract extension From The New York Post: Mike Puma wrote: A club source indicated Tuesday that general manager Sandy Alderson may still engage deGrom’s camp in negotiations at some point this winter. DeGrom is under club control through 2020, making it likely the Mets would seek a five-year deal that would buy out his three remaining arbitration years. The Mets would then receive a team-friendly contract for two added years of control. So, if this happens, will the raise he gets for 2018 cut into the $30-40 million that Alderson has to play with or is that considered separate?

Let's not forget about Mitch Moreland and Mark Reynolds, even though you may want to. They are out there however, and it is not unreasonable to think that one of them might end up as Mets if they are really serious about bringing in a first baseman and whiff on Hosmer, Santana, Morrison, and Alonso. Reynolds in particular is a little interesting since, as a righty, he might not totally block Smith. http://www.espn.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/30452 http://www.espn.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/28772

Tom Slater is the Assistant Hitting Coach. https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/mets-hire-tom-slater-to-be-their-assistant-hitting-coach/261821234

Three things. . . 1) It definitely looks like I was wrong when I said that the Mets were "all in" on Smith as the undisputed starting first basemen for 2018. 2) I would caution against going completely into "all is lost, woe is us" mode with regard to the $30 million budget for new players (if that even is true). You have to look at this with an eye towards next year's Hot Stove as well in that you want money saved and positions on your roster available for what is a clearly better class a year from now. This can go in any number of directions obviously, but in theory what if an on it's face meager 2018 haul of Morrison, Vargas, and Shaw paves the way to a dual splash of, let's say, Donaldson and LeMahieu next year? 3) If this "trend" of limiting the innings and exposure of pitchers continues, MLB as a whole is going to have to either: a) add an extra active roster spot for the whole season, allow teams to carry/travel with more players than they would be able to "dress" for any given game and just move guys in and out of the active roster on a daily basis at will, or c) do both of those things in conjunction.

That Kazmir trade ruined my enjoyment of the one and only time I caught a game at the Metrodome. I had a friend who was living out there at the time and we were about to catch a Twins/Sawx matchup when the news came over ESPN while we were pregaming at a nearby bar.

Frayed Knot wrote: Well, several posts in this thread have talked about either dealing Smith away based on the idea that Alonso is maybe just a year away, and/or that Alsono's very presence should at least figure into the team's willingness to deal Smith. I think both of those scenarios are jumping the gun. I would be right with you on this were it not for the actual reports that I am seeing which are stating/speculating that they might be in on the likes of Morrison and Yonder Alonso (and, to a less likely extent, Hosmer and Santana).

https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/in-complicated-market-mets-may-need-to-add-1-3-infielders/261023478 "The way it stands for the Mets, Rosario and Smith are only penciled in as the team's starting shortstop and first baseman next season. Their names are not in ink. The Mets will deny it in public, but I'm convinced in talking to people around the league that the Mets are 100 percent willing to discuss both players in trade, especially Smith, and are not necessarily committed to starting them next season." Regarding Rosario, I'll believe it when I see it, and maybe not even after I see it. The only way I see them trading him is if it's Correa or Lindor coming back, and I really do not see them not playing him if they still have him.

It's hard for me to believe that these reports are coming out that the Mets are looking at free agent first basemen without me thinking that they have at least had preliminary talks with other teams that include Smith as part of a package that brings something big back. Less than 200 ABs is not enough sample size to give up on a guy who has put up the numbers in the minors that Smith has had along with the rankings that he has attained on prospect lists over the years. Obviously, I cannot totally predict this, but the pieces might fit this way. . . -All of Davidoff's speculations come to pass and they sign Morrison for 2/$25, Shaw for 3/$27, and Vargas for 1/$9. That is $30.5 million of payroll added for 2018. Right in the wheelhouse of the lower ends of what people are speculating that Alderson is able to spend. -Harvey projects for $5.9 million in arbitration and Flores for $3.7 million. That's a total of $9.6 million. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/10/projected-arbitration-salaries-for-2018.html -The Twins know that they have to get a return for Dozier now or lose him for nothing in a year. Thanks to a link that Edgy posted in another thread, now I know that Pohlad is on record saying that they would want big league talent in return as opposed to prospects that are "years away". We can offer that in Flores (Dozier's replacement who the Twins would control for two more years), Harvey (a semi-reclamation project but who has most definitely had ace-level performance in the not so far off past and might do well to get a change of scenery as he goes into an important year for him), and Smith (a solid prospect who is major league ready and could allow them to move Mauer to DH is they think that needs to happen). Being that Dozier makes $9 million this year (and $9.6 million would be going out in that deal), the financial numbers for the Mets work out perfectly. But would that package entice Minnesota? They have a first base prospect in the name of Lewin Diaz who projects very similarly to Smith but is a year or maybe two away. Does that make them completely non-interested in Smith? How does Harvey's current value compared to his past track record play in a package like that?

I'm sure that Alonso (the prospect) is playing a role as to whether or not Smith is expendable in a trade, but Morrison and Alonso (the free agent) are both better options than Duda.

I doubt that the Mets are going to be seriously in for Hosmer or Santana, but they may realistically end up signing Morrison or Alonso. If they do, is a Flores/Harvey/Smith for Brian Dozier trade totally outrageous?

My mistake, it's Davidoff....

Edgy MD wrote: They need at least one outfielder at some level. And my yes is tempered by the idea that C.C. Sabathia is going to sign with the Mets out os solidarity with Joe Girardi. He's going to sign with the Mets if they offer $100 more than another team. I meant the Sabathia thing more in the sense that he might not automatically go back to the Yankees by rote moreso than saying that he is specifically going to sign with the Mets out of spite, so I am putting him on my list for that reason. Aoki, Granderson, Austin Jackson, Daniel Nava, and Ben Revere are outfielders at some level, they can get one of them. I buried this idea in a longer post a few days ago, but at some point (and this point is now), they need to determine something with regard to Lagares because that $9 million guaranteed payday in 2019 is coming whether you like it or not. They have to see of he can play regularly for them or, alternatively, they need to create a trade market for him. Both of those require that he plays in 2018. So, say Harper and Metsblog are both right and the have about $40 million to spend. . . -$15 million for a closer -$12 million for a starting pitcher -$13 million to be split between an outfielder from the above list and a veteran backup infielder such as Reyes, Kendrick, or Yunel Escobar. You have improved the 2018 team and you are still set up for the 2019 Hot Stove where there is potential for bigger splashes.