Mex17

metsmarathon wrote: markakis is a minus-defender, who last year played at replacement level, and is owed $15M next year. before then, he's mostly a 1.5-2 win player, and is a long time removed from his 6-win 2008 campaign. if it costs more than ike, it costs too much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_markakis I'm reading Gold Glove, leader in outfield assists, and leader in OF fielding percentage. I don't know in what sabermetric criss-cross logic world that equates to "minus defender". Probably the same one that came up with this "replacement level" crap that I now cannot get away from.

I know that Francesa is not the most popular guy around here, but earlier this week he did float the notion that Markakis could possibly be obtained for a package that included Ike, Murphy, and a minor league pitcher that would be "below the level of Syndergaard". I was left wondering if that meant Montero or not. Open question, in such a theoretical trade, would it take Montero as the third piece to get it done, or do Ike and Murphy carry enough value as a combo to leave Montero out of the trade in favor of one of Mazzoni/Fulmer/Mateo/Tapia/Ynoa/Matz/whoever? Opine at your pleasure.

Zvon wrote: If we get a shortstop, great. It's sad to say almost anyone would be an upgrade. But if we don't I am all in favor of giving Tejeda another shot. He's so young at 24. He can do a decent job, we've seen him do it. In limited play he batted over .280 in both 2011 and '12. It's keeping him on the field and a slightly immature attitude (that's my opinion) that's been a problem. But he's only 24. He really should mature and develop into a solid starting shortstop. There's only one thing stopping him. Himself. I'd be fine with giving him a few months to show if he can get there with us or not. Short leash though. If Murphy goes in a trade, I have no problem throwing Tejada in a competition along with Young and Flores for the second base job. I just don't think that you can unconditionally hand him a starting position on a silver platter again (at either of the two positions). He has already displayed that he cannot self motivate himself in those circumstances.

FK...I just don't believe the approach you are endorsing is aggressive enough... Agreed. Even though I also agree in theory with a lot of what FK is saying, I also recognize that there is risk in that approach just as there is risk in signing the wrong guy to the wrong contract. You can conceivably look at everyone, point out the flaws in each one, take pass after pass, and end up with no one at the end of the day. I think the problem with trying to trade for a shortstop (like, for example Ike for JJ Hardy or Yuniel Escobar. . .two possibilities that I have seen floated) is that you would use pieces in that trade that could be used to net a 2nd corner outfielder (after and assuming that we sign one as a free agent). I am an Alderson supporter (I like the fact that a centered, patient, intellectual is making the calls), but allow me to rephrase the point that I attempted to make earlier. When he came here, there were a lot of problems. Shortstop was not one of them. That became a problem on his watch. Although it was not totally his fault (the financial issues of The Three Stooges had something to do with it as well), part of the reasoning that led to letting the previous shortstop go was that it was believed (and we were told) that there was an in-house solution in place. That in-house solution failed and has now been emasculated publically more than once by the General Manager. In short, we had a shortstop, we got rid of that one because we thought we had another one, we didn't, and now we need a shortstop. . .desperately. That is on Alderson to solve.

After thinking about it, maybe I would go as high as 4 for $48-$50. That is technically higher than the 3 for $45 threshhold that I read about but keeps him from being a $15 per year player, which he is not.

Another advantage to signing Granderson is that, by taking the prime lefthanded power bat off of the market, you then increase the trade market for the two lefthanded power bats that you are shopping around yourself.

He wants MORE than 3/$45, which I think is ridiculous. I see him as a three for $24-$27-$30 or at the most four for $32-$36-$40, but I am afraid that the low supply of shortstops (basically him and Drew) will drive the market higher than his "worth" based on on field performance. The problem here is that Alderson really backed himself into a corner on this. We HAD a shortstop who was one of the best in the sport that he essentially wanted nothing to do with. Part of the reason for that, as far as I understood at the time, is that we had a kid (Tejada) was was ready to "step in". Then that didn't happen, and Alderson has been very vocal and public about the fact that he now does not like Tejada (who he was at one point counting on) and feels that there is a need at shortstop (a need that was created by his own inaction). He basically HAS to come up with Peralta now!!

Oops, forgot the Tigers. They traded for Jose Iglesias, so yes, I would think they are out.

Trying here to gauge the market on Peralta. Looking at it team by team, this is what I came up with: Orioles: JJ Hardy = NO Red Sox: Xander Boegarts = NO Yankees: injured old Jeter = MAYBE (stick Peralta in LF or 3B if no AROD and when Jeter can't go plug him in at SS) Rays: won't spend = NO Blue Jays: Reyes = NO White Sox: Alexei Ramirez = NO Indians: Asdrubal Cabrera= NO Royals: Alcides Escobar = YES Twins: Pedro Floriman, but are they in a position to splurge? = NO Astros: won't spend = NO Angles: Erick Aybar = NO Athletics: Jed Lowrie = NO Mariners: Brad Miller. . . decent enough year at the plate and is cheap and under team control = NO Rangers: Andrus and Profar = NO Braves: Andrelton Simmons. . .I think they like him = NO Marlins: won't spend (and they have the SS that they got from Toronto in the Reyes trade)= NO Phillies: Rollins = NO Nats: Desmond = NO Cubs: Castro = NO Reds: Zack Cozart. . .I think they like him. Decent year/former top prospect I think/cheap and under control = NO Brewers: Jean Segura. . .good year/cheap/under control = NO Pirates: Jordy Mercer. . .see above = NO Cardinals: Pete Kozma = YES (but might be the landing place for Drew instead) DBacks: Didi Gregorous. . .I think they like him and they have Cliff Pennington too = NO Rockies: Tulowitski = NO Dodgers: Dee Gordon (but they have a kid coming up named Corey Seager who might be their longer term answer) = MAYBE Giants: Brandon Crawford. . .respectable year, cheap and under control = NO Padres: Everth Cabrera, but are they in a position to splurge? = NO So, in my view, the main competitors are the Yanks, Royals, Cardinals, and Dodgers.

This is worth noting, and encouraging. . . https://twitter.com/TheNotoriousT0m/status/399974749696053248/photo/1 I think that it is also worth stating that not every "lost" home run would necessarily translate into a flyout. What about them (or at least a portion of them) becoming doubles/triples that are either off the wall or in the gap where the defenders cannot get to them in time?

There is no deal being discussed for Tulo. It's all media speculation that has been debunked by Colorado's owner (who flat out said that they are NOT trading him).

Here are some creative ideas that Harper threw out. Not sure if I like all of them, but I might just need time to process. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/harper-deal-deal-mets-trades-offseason-article-1.1512130 As for me, at the moment I like Grandy and Peralta, plus the Davis for Aoki trade that Sherman floated. Cruz could be an option as well, or Byrd for another year while they wait out Harvey's year off (then revisit using the young pitching depth for a blockbuster next winter).

Combined road splits for 2011 and 2012 (last two healthy seasons). . . 614 ABs 23 doubles 37 homers 107 RBI .833 OPS 187 K's Cannot really provide a link since I had to do the addition myself, but you can do the same using ESPN or Baseball Reference.

Ashie62 wrote: 3 for 45 may not be grandiose enough.. 5-80 Let's split the baby and say 4 for 60. I disagree that this is too rich for the Mets. Let's assume that they have $40 million to spend (which is the high end of the estimates and what will bring them to their 2013 payroll). . . $15 for Granderson + $8 for Peralta (assuming) + $10 for the "veteran innings eater for the rotation" = $33 million. That leaves an additional $7 million for Hawkins and a veteran backup catcher. Throw in this Ike for Aoki trade that Sherman said might be possible and you add in an additional $1.5 million. None of that is impossible. Money notwithstanding, do you like Grandy in a corner spot? I would be hesitant to move the younger Lagares out of CF just to accomodate an older (and probably less athletic at this point. . .albeit not completely broken down) veteran who just expects to go into the position he has always played. What are the challenges for a centerfielder by trade moving into one of the corners?

Might be the best pure power bat out there. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/baseballinsider/2013/11/ny-mets-show-preliminary-interest-in-curtis-granderson-who-is-likely-to-leav

http://metsblog.com/metsblog/jordany-valdespin-is-on-fire-at-las-vegas/#disqus_thread If he keeps it up, does he deserve a September call-up? My answer is NO. Too much has happened and every single member of this team literally hates him apparantly. The best thing to do for his own good, and also for the unit, is to completely snub him even if he hits 1.000 the rest of the way. What say you?

RBIs are more a byproduct of your hitting than a measure of it. This statement implies that there is no human element to the game whatsoever. I'm pretty sure that, deep down, you know that is not true. "Here you are in the ninth, two men out and three men on. Nowhere to look but inside."

Frayed Knot wrote: The problem with RBIs is that they're very team and lineup dependent; what team you're on at what time and where you hit in that lineup are all big factors. RBIs are, to some extent, an outcome based on one's circumstances rather than a measure of ability. I think that argument works better if all your numbers are up to par with the exception of RBI (such as in the case of Stanton his first few years I believe). Being presented with an opportunity (in the case, men on base) and what you do with that opportunity is a measure of ability, is it not? I think that it is.

Nymr83 wrote: Mex, RBI are about as stupid an individual stat as pitcher Wins and I find it hard to believe you'd want to use them to "bolster" your argument. No offense intended, but are you nuts?

dinosaur jesus wrote: Loney's got no power at a power position, and he's a poor fielder. He's only got value if he hits well over .300, which he's doing now and which he did in 2007. But those seasons are outliers as much as the awful 2012. In a normal season he's basically replacement-level. Not a good risk even if you can get him cheap, and he won't be cheap. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/loneyja01.shtml Your best argument is the defensive one. I have no idea whether or not he has a good glove, so I will assume that you are correct. In two of the seasons where he did not reach .300 he still had 90 RBI and in all of those seasons save for one he reached at least 30 doubles (and that one was one of the 90 RBI years). Excluding 2012, his lowest average was a respectible .267 and he knocked 41 doubles and 88 RBI that year. He is not a slugger but what I think he can be is a reliable piece in an ensamble lineup who will "move the chain" and hit line drives in the gaps. Plus, factor in the fact that acquiring him will not cost you any of the young pitching via trade, so the lack of dingers is offset by runs potentially saved through mound performance (think the same thing for Choo, and you can even add keeping Flores to that logic. . .so you get three in the lineup for the price of two).

Edgy MD wrote: I believe Duda will be out of options. My error in assuming then.

Edgy MD wrote: The rush is neither one of time nor money, but whether there remains room in the lineup for them. Or even on the roster. The question becomes one of space. They have five outfielders, each with a different profile from Duda, and while he has more offensive potential going forward than many or most of them, the pitching staff has been revived since he's gone a-huntin'. You don't want to make too much of it, but is absence is certainly a factor. There's a few guys in the pipeline (den Dekker, Puello), a few guys on the fringe (Baxter, Valdespin), a few guys nobody is thinking about but are nonetheless hitting (Campbell, Vaughn), and guys deep down like Nimmo. Sticking with him is a big decision. I'm sure that Vegas will need a first baseman next year. If they control him and do not need to pay him anything crazy, stick him down there and save him for a rainy day.

Ike has 71 games to show something. I hope he does. Duda, I believe, will not be arb eligible and has options. No rush to make a call on him at all. Give me the anti-Loney argument (outside of the bad 2012).

Ashie62 wrote: Young is doing well at being Mr. Slappy from the left side. That has been has problem...Is this correction for real? hope so He is getting consistent ABs for the first time in his career. That matters.

Anyone who is grinning from ear to ear in their mug shot HAS to be nucking futs!!!