Frayed Knot

Jo-Say Jo-Say

Well it doesn't totally suck. For each QO FA who signs with a team who has a pick outside the top 10 but below the Mets slot at #24, that pick essentially disappears causing each pick after it to move up one slot. So Murphy signing with the Nats and Samardzija w/the Giants makes picks #18 & 19 go away so the NYM picks slide up to 22 & 38 rather than 24 & 40. The remaining QO FAs ranked ahead of Murphy are Ian Kennedy; Justin Upton; Hisashi Iwakuma; Wei-Yin Chen; Chris Davis; Ian Desmond; Jordan Zimmermann; Yovani Gallardo Zimmermann signed with the Tigers who have a protected (top 10) pick so that doesn't affect anything, nor does Iwakuma who, after a dalliance with the Dodgers, re-signed with his original team in Seattle. But for each of the remainder who sign (but not re-sign) with the Mariners, Red Sox, D-backs, Rays, Orioles, Indians, Twins, Angels, Astros, Yankees, or Rangers, those NYM picks will move up one additional slot.

The Mets don't get the Nats #18 pick. Via the new rules as of a couple years back the Nats lose the #18 pick but the acquired pick that the Mets get is tacked on to the end of the 1st round in some pre-determined order or another. So we'll wind up with an extra pick in the upper 30s to around #40 in addition to our regular #24 pick.

He was a likable guy and I'll miss him. I remember Gary Cohen's story about his college team introducing themselves on camera with their name and fielding position. But of course fielding was always an afterthought with Murph so when it came time for his intro he went with the simple: "I'm Daniel Murphy ... and I hit third!!" But, even though I thought Gary assessment of him last summer during a radio interview as a "net negative ... and always has been" was a bit harsh, we knew he had his faults to go with the plusses. It's almost hard to remember now that he came back from two big-time knee injuries early in his career - one knocking out his entire 2010 season and the other cutting short his 2011. Those things aren't easy to come back from and yet it's barely a footnote with him now. I thought he was sure to be traded in each of the last two winters - but given this year for both him and the team maybe it was better that he wasn't as he was a huge part of the 2015 season. Turns out that maybe THIS would have been the off-season to 'sell high' on him but he was no longer under control to do so and that's OK too. Will probably end his tenure as a low-20s all-time Met (acc to the CPF rankings) -- that's assuming youse guys ever get around to submitting your rankings for this season, I guess that'll be an after the holidays deal So long goofball, you served your time well.

Reported as a three year deal. I hate to see Murphy end up in Washington. He should be a good fit for the Nationals. He is a significant improvement (at least offensively) over Danny Espinosa at second base. He's more directly replacing Yunel Escobar who played 3rd for the Nats while Rendon was DL'd but was hired as their 2B and went on a one year splurge of .314/.375/.415 which was a 50-75 point jump across the board from his 2014 numbers so Muffy won't be that big an increase for them. And they still need to find themselves a SS unless they're going to move Espinosa there who may actually be a better SS than Desmond though not as good a hitter. And now this gives us a strategy against the Nats next year: hit it to Murph!!

Reportedly agree to a three-year deal. Of course this is the same club that "reportedly" had a Brandon Phillips deal all in line and the team is not confirming this yet.

At first I read this as 'The Big Short[u:2gwsn9g9]s[/u:2gwsn9g9]' and wondered why they were making a movie about what Bartolo wears underneath his uniform ... but it turns out that 'Short' is singular and is instead about the financial crisis of 2007-8 and how a handful of oddballs and outsiders decide that not only is the system broken, complacent, and corrupt, but it's also stupid. Adopted from the Michael Lewis book (a la 'Moneyball') and directed/co-written by a guy (Adam McCay) who has mostly specialized in directing/writing some of the sillier aspects of Will Ferrell's movie career ('Talladega Nights', 'Anchorman(s)', 'Step-Brothers', etc.), it all seems like an odd fit for a movie and for the principals involved. Brad Pitt, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Marisa Tomei, and Christian Bale star, along with some unexpected guest appearances -- chef Anthony Bordain, sex-pot Margot Robbie, pop-tart Selena Gomez -- who appear as themselves to help explain some of the more arcane financial details and advance the story. No, really, they do.

I'd be more OK with this if the reports on his CF defense were better - but I also have no idea how accurate those (sometimes dire) projections are.

Kirk was talented, athletic, good-looking, home-grown and had the potential to be a very popular NY Met. All he lacked was the ability to be, y'know, good at baseball.

Vic Sage wrote: and that is why i'm not even going to bother, unless i catch on cable at some point. That was my initial reaction, but then I was led to believe (not just by DWG above but by professional-type reviewers as well) that this one was a top-notch movie on its own - although I'm beginning to think that maybe it's more a case of this one being graded on a curve. Or maybe it's just me, who knows.

I'm cross-posting here with Bucket and am repeating some stuff, but a couple of things here rather than just erasing it all: - the Cubs signed Heyward with the intention of playing him everyday in CF (they let Dexter Fowler walk) and top shelf FAs who have their choice of where to go tend generally to pick spots where their role is well-defined. - Nor were the Mets going to say to Granderson: 'Hey you were our best (full time) offensive player last year and so we're going to reward you by cutting out 1/3 of your playing time'. It's why I said, back when this topic first started, that if they were going to go after Heyward (or Upton) it was going to be as a replacement for one of their OFs not as an addition to the incumbents, and when you've got two OFs already in the midst of long-term deals plus one promising rookie that track is not always so easy. It's nice that you (CF) recognize that you're willing to deal Granderson but, as JCL says, that was definitely NOT the vibe during most of the Heyward discussions. - of course no one knows what we'll get out of Wright + d'Arnaud + Conforto but I think it would be safe to bet the 'Over' on the 565 combined ABs from 2015. Conservatively they'll double that; ideally come close to tripling it; and it would take several simultaneous disasters not to at least surpass it - yes they need to replace what they got from Cespedes but it's not like he was the full-season cleanup hitter - he was here for 1/3 of the season and was 10th on the team in ABs - as Billy/Brad Bean/Pitt said about losing Giambi: 'we can't replace him directly so we need to replace him in the aggregate' As always you are free to disagree with that strategy and/or exchange the word "can't" with "choose not to because we're parasitic vultures whose purpose is to rip you off while lining our pockets", but it's the road they're opting to take and I think folks need to at least accept that it is A strategy and that not every loss needs to be answered by a player who most closely resembles the guy being replaced.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Even if this is all true --and I'm not saying it isn't, Kansas City shouldn't be the baseline or gauge by which to measure the Mets... Not suggesting that it is. The only point I sort of had (and, as I said, it was really just curiosity more than anything) was to show that teams can and do improve without big, gaudy, headline-stealing moves. Is there a difference in value between a player that creates x runs of offense for his team over the course of a season and a player who prevents the opposition from scoring x runs over the course of a season? If the Mets were shutting out the opposition game in and game out, then I could definitely see your point. But I doubt that the Mets run prevention (pitching and defense combined) is at a level that would render Heyward's defense as superfluous. Except in this case where the innings Heyward would be taking would be almost strictly Lagares's which would be more or less status quo as far as defense goes -- maybe even down somewhat as Heyward as racked up most of his rep as a RF. That in turn means that Heyward's 'value added', if you will, would be almost entirely on the offensive side where he's a nice, though hardly great, player. None of which is to knock Heyward* but it's why I said when he was first being talked about here that if we were to bring him in in would be instead of Lagares not to platoon with him as some were suggesting. Top level FAs don't come into situations where they platoon and ownership (least of all this one) don't pay top dollar for part-time players. * Fuckin' auto-correct keeps changing this to Hayward

Just out of curiosity I went looking at what kind of off-season moves the 2014 Royals made after their 89-win / WS-losing season * 7 of their starting 9 position players returned. They swapped out Nori Aoki for Alex Rios in RF -- a move which essentially wound up as a net negative [710 OPS to 640] and at DH Billy Butler was swapped for Kendrys Morales -- a net positive at it turned out [702 OPS to 847] although that was hardly a given as Morales was coming off a lousy and partial 2014: 632 OPS in 200+ AB * On the pitching side: James Shields left as a FA and was replaced by Edinson Volquez which resulted in pretty much the status quo [14 wins, 3.21 ERA/1.18 WHiP vs 13, 3.55/1.31] They signed Chris Young as a 5th starter/swingman: a guy who had made a total of 60 starts total over the six seasons from 2008-2013 but gave them 18 starts + 16 relief apps with a 3.04 / 0.96 Signed Ryan Madson to replace Aaron Crow in the bullpen -- another move which worked out great [2.13 / 0.93] even though Madson hadn't thrown an official pitch since 2011 * Then at the trading deadline they added Zobrist & Cueto The 2015 squad wound up scoring 73 more runs in 2015 than in '14 (6th best in AL) while allowing 17 more (3rd best) and winning seven more games. In both seasons they played to five games better than their pythagorean projections.

I'd be lying if I claimed to have any first hand knowledge of De Aza A look at the numbers shows a better split vs RHPs for his career, what looks like some speed, and has played more CF in his time than anywhere else. I have a healthy distrust of defensive numbers so I'm going to hold off on an opinion there until I see him over some span of time. He was decent in the years he was a more or less full-time starter (2012-14 w/ChiSox -- .266/.329/.401) and I tend to have hope for guys with some prime left (32 in April) moving from full time to platoon roles. I know he drew some praise in Boston last for helping out their OF situation (bouncing mostly between LF & RF) after they picked him up last June from Baltimore. Of course they dealt him away again three months later but I think that says more about the ups and downs of the Sox last year than it does about him. Good OBA numbers in both Boston & SF last year [.347 & .387] but that's a smallish sample [250 PA] so probably shouldn't be looked at as sustainable - although it's not like his career norm of .331 is bad Wouldn't have to do too much to surpass Pena and become the Mets' best Alejandro ever.

Can we make him use a lower case D on his uniform? Seems like it would be bad for team morale if he didn't.

So from your post, am I correct in concluding that you are in the "Using Mets money to finance their personal debt" camp? Not having the slightest clue about the condition of their personal finances, about those of the team, or about laws and guidelines (both USA & MLB) which govern what is or isn't permissible involving cases like this, I have no freakin' idea about what happens with 'Mets money'. I did read a small note in October estimating that post-season income would, for the first time in years, push the team's bottom line for 2015 a 'small amount' into the black. Not much to go on considering that info was neither confirmed nor specific, but assuming the "first time in years" part is correct then they couldn't be using NYM profits to shore up their personal woes because there haven't been any profits - something which, given loan paybacks, stadium debt, et al, may well be true. Of course then you get into whether maybe team profits are being hidden in the SNY part of the equation (not unheard of in the sports accounting world) but now we're even further in total guesswork. Bottom Line: Damned if I know.

Centerfield wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: But we also know that that's not realistic at this time Well, that's really the key here. I guess a bunch of you guys knew. And you've had time to come to grips with this reality. Well I don't claim to KNOW anything; it's why I tend to stay away from the threads where folks construct their dream team based on a specific budget number that's nothing more than a figure they pull out of the air, and why I said that you're free to choose whether you think it's a case of the team being unable to spend a particular amount or unwilling to because no one here, least of all me, knows what the "correct" amount is. But I think it's safe to say that based on the payrolls over the last few years combined with what we know about Madoff, about the loans to cover those losses, about the lawsuit to recover even some of the gains they made with Madoff, about the debt taken on to finance the stadium just as the recession was blowing in and shooting the hell out of the windfall they were expecting, and maybe even going back to the money they spent buying out Doubleday & Cablevision (while thinking they had a bigger cushion to fall back on), that they're not currently able to spend at or anywhere near the top of the league. Add all that up and I think it's pretty clear that they weren't going to go after top FA stars this winter AND plug other holes at the same time with the smaller six & eight & 10 million dollar moves. You obviously wanted them to go with choice A over B but they went the other way. Would I prefer them to do both? Sure Are they going to be able to in the future? Maybe Are they able right now to spend at least some more but are holding back for what they think is the right opportunity? I have no idea.

Centerfield wrote: They're trying to build a "pretty good" team. "Great" is not realistically on their radar. "Great" is only possible by accident. They've traded in their chance at "great" in exchange for "financial flexibility". We have always suspected that ownership's goal was to field a team just good enough to compete for the playoffs. Never has that been more apparent than it is now. Well I think we can all agree that it would be just terrific if they had the clout to fix/upgrade ALL the holes at once; to improve the roster at the backend AND sign top-notch FAs at the front end all while knowing that none of that will have any effect on the future of the young pitchers as they start to move into more expensive arb/FA years. But we also know that that's not realistic at this time so, for right now anyway, they're opting to go for the multiple but smaller upgrades at several spots route rather than risk it all for the potentially bigger prize sitting behind Door #2

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Edgy MD wrote: He's done plenty of hockey and basketball. I think he'd be unemployed for about a minute if he walked away from the Mets. That's almost certainly true. Hell, he could find another baseball job, most likely. The Met and Giant booths seem near-universally regarded as everybody's second favorite booths in baseball. Yeah, I don't think Gary could live without baseball. Hell, it seems that most of the time he's not doing a game he spends watching other games. So I think he views college hoops and the like as mere appetizers to his main course and if he ever had cause to want to leave NYM/SNY it would be for another full-time MLB gig - although you figure it would be anywhere but the Bronx.

d'Kong76 wrote: And I asked where's the anxiety. Is it your anxiety or are there drums beating out there onthe metserweb is all I'm asking. The NYDN (Raissman) ran an article the other day talking about how it's not a done deal yet and the contract expires Jan 1. No hints that it wouldn't happen only that it hasn't yet and yaneverknow.

But what's Keith's alternative? Same role different team? ... I have trouble seeing that. It would probably need to be the perfect spot for him (San Fran?) and who says that spot's even open (Giants have a good team now with Krukow & Kuiper). Retire and spend the full-year in Florida doing ... whatever it is he does in Florida? would be tough to maintain his current two homes situation with no income. I think he's too kooky for any of the networks - 10 years or more doing what he does and I've never heard them sniff about him even once while Ronnie does weekends and post-season. So I suspect he'll sign after the haggling over the details run their course as both sides will realize that they've got a good thing going here.

Centerfield wrote: They definitely can (or at least, could have) reallocated assets in order to afford a star outfielder this year even with the current payroll. (They spent $20 million plus on Cabrera/Colon/Blevins already. If they had gone Herrera over Walker, that would be another $10 million. And it's rumored that they have another $10 million to spend) OK, but again, my point is that they are viewing the lack of adequate second options as a large reason why the 2015 offense was such a mess in the first place, particularly once Wright & d'Arnaud went down. So what they've chosen to do going into the coming year is bank on the idea that upgrades such as Colon over Verrett, Walker over Herrera, Blevins over Leathersich, Flores/Tejada as platoon/backups rather than starters and other such depth-strengthening moves collectively add up to a better strategy than would whatever upgrade they'd get by putting all their eggs into the basket of the one BIG CATCH. Disagree with that direction if you want, but I think that's the argument they'd give you if pressed on why they chose not to spend the majority of their allowance on one sexy move.

SteveJRogers wrote: ... I'm pretty sure both NYC teams still have deals with sending the current skipper to one of the drive time Mikes for a weekly spot. Sure, I suspect most if not all ML managers have some sort of periodic media contract (even if just for the extra income) ... but weekly not Daily! The fact that the team thought approving its then new manager for an everyday segment on its flagship station was a good idea I believe shows that they viewed the hire at least partly for perceived image purposes.

I wonder if other teams are planning on using that model (stay close, make a big strike at the deadline and save a half-season of salary, which might account for the slow free agent action). I don't think anyone really goes into the season with that 'model' in mind. Ideally you only decide on that after you find yourselves in a situation such as the Mets did last year: in mid-July with a clearly defined spot that needs an upgrade (the worst offense in MLB) and yet keeping their heads above .500 and within striking distance of the division thanks to some monumental underachieving by the Natinals. That's when you make a decision to spend prospects in order to 'go for it'. In this case it worked flawlessly when Cespedes going ape on ML pitchers synched-up with the return/call-up/rebirth of Wright/d'Arnaud/Conforto/Granderson & co. and, in a blink, the worst became best. But we've also seen times where those kinds of moves have been ill-timed and backfired (cough ... Kazmir ... cough) and, even this past year, had Sandy gone through with his first choice of the Carlos Gomez deal I think it's safe to say that things wouldn't have worked out nearly as well. To sum up with my original point: what I think they're doing this winter by skipping over the 'star' market in favor of trying to plug the holes in the 'back end' of the roster* is to hopefully not find themselves in a situation where they're DFL in runs scored again if/when they get hit by injuries or under-achievements and feel they have to throw the trading-deadline hail-Mary again. * and, again, I'm putting aside for purposes of this discussion whether you're in the camp that thinks the team can't spend or simply won't spend as the result is the same no matter what the cause

I don't remember what first attracted the Mets to him [insert required crack about Dodger connections here], nor why Reinsdorf would have been so indifferent to letting him go [insert line about Reinsdorf being a general asshole here]. My lasting impression is that he was one of Wilpon's 'comfortable' hires, the ones where, like Art Howe years later, Fred seemed to go for the no-sharp-edges type that he thought would put a friendly face up front and bring good pr/community relations above and beyond whatever he brought to the field. To that end (although it's impossible to know how much Fred directed this) Torborg was almost immediately hooked up with WFAN. The all-sports format was still fairly new in those days and it's certainly common enough to have a show with the local manager particularly when the station is also the flagship for the team and the relation between the team & station still in the early lovey-dovey stage. So lovey-dovey in fact that someone thought it would be a good idea if he were on [u:1wh3ocu6]EVERY DAY[/u:1wh3ocu6] for a chat/Q&A with the mid-day hosts: the just then starting to bloom 'Mike and the Mad Dog' show. I remember Lupica took to calling him 'Jeff from Flushing' because he was on at least as often as even the most ambitious callers who were using the still newish medium to spout their views on all things sports. Needless to say the concept grew old after a short span and the weariness of his commitment started to show on air and the feel-good vibe gave way to the occasional testy exchanges which is certainly not what the NYM side of the pairing was hoping for. He also did commercial spots for NEWSDAY although that too ran into a few snags when he questioned a quote or two they ran which put him in the position of essentially claiming the paper he was being paid to tout was lying about something and them calling him a liar for denying it. Proof once again that the moves made largely for pr purposes often produce unintended consequences in the other direction.