Frayed Knot

Edgy MD wrote: As noted above, there's also the possibility of transitioning Cespedes to DH (should the universal DH come to pass), opening up more room in the outfield for Lagares and Nimmo. Or Conforto or Granderson to DH. Yeah, I thought about that after I posted but then didn't tack it on because I don't want to even contemplate life under that fucking rule.

So let's break this down and flesh it out a bit - opt-outs are now officially the new black - if we get the Cespedes of 2013-14 [744 OPS combined] then the team is going to have a lot of disappointed fans on their hands -- THIS ISN'T WHAT WE'RE PAYING FOR!!!! -- plus the specter of an expensive contract hanging over their heads for the following two seasons even though the $27.5 salary for '15 becomes slightly cheaper (~$23.5/per) in years 2 & 3 - if we get something more like Cespedes of 2012 + 2015 [~900 OPS] -- to say nothing of Cespedes circa NYM Aug-Sep 2015 (942 OPS) -- then the team will likely have a good season overall (subject to a ton of other factors obviously) but then run the risk that he walks again. Hard to say how likely that is as it's not like there's a huge sample size of opt-out history although I believe the few players who have had them have used them every time (ARod, CC) - if he doesn't exercise the opt-out it almost certainly means Lagares goes at some point. Maybe they could handle one more year of making him the 4th OF they're not going to hang on to him for long in that role as his contract starts to get more expensive waiting for the Cespedes deal to run out. They could still deal him this winter although I doubt they want to sell low or depend too much on Conforto just yet. - The other alternative would be to try and trade the final year of Granderson's deal but I think the window on that is closed this year - looks like they COULD sign Cespedes even despite the existence of the Lagares contract and without the Wright insurance money

ummmm, a strawberry/banana smoothie ... I'm a bit late to the news.

OBA is a biggie though, and while the three year gap isn't as big as the one from just last year, it's still sizable and we know it's important to Sandy. Tack on that plus a speed gap and four years of age difference ...

I think it would be preferable to a longer term contract.

Mex17 wrote: Random observation from the Washington perspective. . .if they had this kind on money to throw around, why not use it to keep Jordan Zimmermann instead? Maybe because one's a 30 y/o pitcher (in May) and the other is a 30 y/o (supposedly) position player? I think the Nats have more pitching on the way then they do hitters. I also remember reading something last year sometime about how GM Rizzo believes that there's a kind of 'expiration date' for recovered TJ cases, that the ligament replacement procedure has a useful life span of seven years or so on it and Zimmermannnnn is already four-five years into his second go around.

Centerfield wrote: Just wondering why we think that this is in the cards considering his production of late. Cuz he'll turn 39 during the coming season and has bounced between seven clubs since 2012 Also don't ignore Byrd's .290 OBA this past year when declaring that he's been "better than Granderson" (.364); Marlon's going to make a lot more outs given equal time and the small difference in slugging is probably more stadium related (1,000 ABs in Cincy & Philly) And if it's not in the cards because someone offers him a multi-year deal with vague promises of 100+ starts/year well then there's a decent chance he's not coming here.

The trick with Byrd is that he's going to have to agree to a deal where he knows coming in that he's not going to be assigned a regular position. If he gets an offer that guarantees him regular playing time then he's probably going to take it. Or maybe not. He's been pretty much a full-time guy the last three seasons but only in 2014 did he hang with one team the entire year (the 89-loss Phils) and guys turning 39 (August) who aren't signed yet as February approaches generally aren't any team's top choice to be a main cog in their lineup. So maybe he is gettable for the role we're thinking of particularly if he thinks a part-timer on a potentially winning club beats being a full-timer on an also-run. Cuddyer at least partially made a similar choice a year ago. Years? -- I can't imagine the Mets would want to go above one. Maybe one plus an option that kicks in at some AB level but, again, he's already 38. Value? -- I don't care. I've long stated here how I'm always more concerned with the length of deals than the dollar figures. Their accountants know what they can or can't afford, I don't.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Projections don't like Byrd a lot. The projection line in BB-Ref still shows 49 XBH over 500 ABs. Rate stats aren't great [.255/.302] but fall-off is to be expected for a guy who's already 38 y/o Now ideally he's not going to get 500 ABs w/the 2016 Mets but that's the good part, he, unlike Cespedes, isn't being signed to lead the offense or play every day. In a perfect world he swaps w/Conforto, fills in for Granderson, PH's, serves as injury insurance, and maybe even picks up a 1B mitt to give Duuduu a day off.

d'Kong76 wrote: The line-up they showed on MLB show earlier was Yo in CF and batting 4th or 5th. Which means whoever is doing that projection is essentially shunting aside the just-acquired Ben Revere - and I even forgot to include Michael Taylor in my earlier post about the Nats already crowded OF, so that would make it Cespedes + Taylor + Werth + Revere + Harper. That reports have the Nats already making an offer to Cespedes means it's probably true it's also an odd way to spend their allowance in my view, especially for a team that lost two top starters and a reliever over the winter.

Averaging 24 HRs/yr & 57 XBH/yr over the past 3 seasons -- that's right up MY alley.

If Cespedes winds up with the Nats it would be interesting to see what they do with their OF. Harper is obviously a given and will play every day. But also they just traded for Ben Revere to hit leadoff and man CF while, in the other corner, Werth is still under an expensive and no-trade contract for another two seasons and shirley still sees himself as an everyday player if healthy.

Zvon wrote: I wonder if they will still allow you to go thru the teams archived games and replay 'em. So for those of you who have used this regularly before, how did it work? And by that I mean both how was the quality/reliability and so on, but also how did it physically work? IOW: - do you have to watch a game live in real time or can you pick it up partway through but still watch from the beginning, or freeze it for a bit then pick it up again, etc.? - are you restricted to just computer (or tablet/phone) viewing or can it be routed through to either a 'smart' TV or to a 'dumb' one via a Roku or some such device?

Heyman, why don't you throw us a bone? I said Heyman, what do you hear on the phone? Listen Heyman, what do you know of this trade? These off-season blues have got my mind out in space.

Ceetar wrote: Zvon wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: MLB will now offer MLB.tv’s full package at $109.99—a 35-percent discount—and single-team options for $84.99. Have they always had team packages? Oy! I've been using MLBtv for years, never heard of that. I imagine they would rather I didn't know. The full package is still worth it, the best deal in town. These days you can pump it to your TV if you want. no, the team packages is part of the settlement. Right. The suit was brought to stop the practice of having to buy all just to get the one you really want.

seawolf17 wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Fernando Martinez too, although I haven't thought of him in years. Am I remembering correctly that he was considered a "can't miss" or am I conflating him with Alex Escobar? Fartinez was the second coming of Lastings Milledge, who was the second coming of Alex Escobar. In every aspect. Only sort of. Milledge was obviously touted due to his high draft status (12th overall). Escobar & Martinez, signed much younger on account of being Latin than even the HS-drafted Lastings, had to earn their prospect status which they both did quite early in the lower minors where, as noted by JCL, their success came against higher-age competition. Problem was that they carried those 'hot prospect' labels with them even as they became less dominant while rising through the system. Both had injury problems as well that stalled their progress, particularly Escobar. But, yeah, all three were OF prospects who failed to materialize. Milledge, now 30 y/o, is credited with only 76 ABs for Yakult in the Japanese League this past season. Even worse is that my auto-correct keeps changing his name to Mileage. Kunz was also a 1st round pick although merely the 42nd one overall -- we had lost our own 1st rounder that year (29th pick) by signing Moises Alou and got the Kunz pick by losing Roberto Hernandez as a FA. As a college reliever from a top program (Oregon State) Kunz was expected to move quickly and possibly slot right into the closer spot. When he failed at that he became for some the symbol of NYM draft failures and it became a mantra for the more cynical set to deride whatever draft was upcoming after that as one where the Mets 'were just going to draft another long-ceiling reliever' as if drafting a reliever that high was something no one else did (nonsense) or something that was an annual NYM move. Five picks before Kunz went Travis d'Arnaud to the Phillies, six picks later went Josh Donaldson. Ah to have a crystal ball.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: In 2015, at least, MLB.TV came free to anyone who subscribed to Extra Innings. Right, but not the other way around. MLB.TV is something that comes directly from MLB as opposed to Extra Innings which you purchase from your cable provider who has made an agreement with MLB to carry it. The advantage to MLB.TV has been that it's cheaper, and now, as the result of this suit, it will be even more so plus give you the even cheaper option of only buying your team's games as opposed to the entire package just to get the one team. The downside, of course, is that it's through the computer and whatever problems that entails.

I'm not sure I understand why Comcast and DirecTV were involved in this suit. I assumed MLB.TV was something one purchased directly from MLB - as opposed to the 'Extra Innings' package which is something that goes through your local cable/content provider.

About a week before a trial was scheduled to begin, Major League Baseball, Comcast and DirectTV agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of fans who alleged the parties violated federal antitrust law by using blackouts to limit out-of-market broadcasts of games. In essense, the suit claimed fans were forced to buy the entire MLB.tv package rather than spend less to buy just the team they wanted to see. The suit was filed in 2012 and challenged MLB’s system for granting exclusive broadcast rights to regional networks and barring teams from broadcasting or streaming games outside their home territories. According to the plaintiffs’ attorney, Jeffrey Dubner of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, MLB will now offer MLB.tv’s full package at $109.99—a 35-percent discount—and single-team options for $84.99. In a statement, Dubner said the agreement now calls for MLB.tv to be the “least-expensive, full-season package offering among all professional sports leagues in the United States.”

My list goes to 11 -- mainly because it appears that I saw exactly 11 2015 movies Roughly in order of good-ness THE BIG SHORT SPOTLIGHT ------------- EX MACHINA THE MARTIAN TRUMBO -------------- CONCUSSION WHILE WE’RE YOUNG DANNY COLLINS CREED -------------- MISSION IMPOSSIBLE - ROGUE NATION EVEREST None of these really sucked, just kind of get more meh towards the bottom.

So to sum up: the DH rule increases payrolls except in those cases where it doesn't.

Opt out after the 2nd year for Upton Makes one kind of nostalgic for the days when offering $22 mil per year actually bought the team a commitment of sorts from a player.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Frankly, I'm surprised that this "DH in the NL" has momentum. Part of the quote from Mozeliak mentions the low run-scoring era as part of the reason for considering it - which is the same sort of short-sighted thinking that brought about the rule in the first place. Although it was mostly the fact that the AL was the lower attendance league [they had the lower-drawing NY team, the lower LA team, the lower Missouri team, etc.] that led them to adopt the DH, they were also the lower offensive league in that era so they figured that the combo of an extra 'name' slugger on the roster would help with both problems. That the rule itself was supposed to be temporary and the AL outlived both the run-scoring and attendance problems didn't stop the rule from becoming entrenched.

I was surprised to see that Davis has played as many games not at 1B as he has [OF = 29 starts in 2015, 19 in '14; 85 starts at 3B over the years] but that's still not so many that you'd think he and Cespedes would be seen as substitutes for one another and one certainly wouldn't think that Davis's defensive versatility would increase once on the other side of 30 (hits the 3-0 mark in March). Now if the O's decide that they have money for Davis AND Yo then maybe this changes nothing. But, absent that, the bottom line here is that this is just one more 7-year deal for a 30 y/o 1B/DH, and it's one for a guy who hasn't exactly been Mr. Consistency: OPS = 827, 1004, 704, 923 [2012-15] which were his only four seasons as a full-time starter. Basically he's Duda in a better HR park only with one drug suspension under his belt and without a 'We Follow' meme attached.

This is like the niece of Prez GW Bush, Lauren, who married the son of Ralph Lauren. That the accent tends to fall on the first syllable in the first name and on the second syllable in the (made-up by her father-in-law*) second name giving the two a slightly different pronunciation, doesn't change the fact that she became Lauren Lauren. * Original name of pops was Ralph Lifshitz