Frayed Knot

I hadn't realized (mainly because I paid no attention to next year's sked until just now) that it's only a two-game series vs KC to open the season (Royals come to Citi for a 2-gamer later on). That means, now with the Sunday start, that they play only twice over the first five days of the season: Sunday & Tuesday, but then not again until the home opener on Friday. That kinda suxx.

NL MVP - Bryce Harper, and it was unanimous. Goldschmit 2nd, Votto 3rd, Anthony Rizzo 4th (which prevented the Cub from sweeping ALL the major awards in the NL this season). Good year for 1st basemen. For all the late season talk about Cespedes sneaking in and grabbing MVP votes, he finished 13th Granderson was 18th which, considering he suxx, is pretty good. AL = Josh Donaldson (23 of 30 votes) Followed by Trout, Lorenzo Cain, Manny Machado Brian McCann was 24th while Alex Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira were T-26 (aka: one 10th place vote each)

ESPN can pick a game to move to Sunday night as the season opener. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the Mets @ KC "rematch". I retract this comment as it appears that Cubs/LAA has already been picked for the ESPN opener: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/schedule/index.jsp#date=04/03/2016 Now I'm told at a broadcasting board that there might be more than one game that Sunday so it could still happen. YUP! MLB going to Three Sunday April 3rd openers -- all to involve 2015 playoff teams and all to be televised by ESPN -- including the Mets @ Royals which will be the featured Sunday night game (meaning that our GKR fix will need to wait an extra day before being fulfilled). Cards @ Pirates at 1:00, Jays @ Rays at 4PM are the other Sunday games. ESPN then returns to broadcast 4 more openers on Monday. The article doesn't go on to mention whether those will be the final time they mention baseball for the rest of the year or not. Also back this year will be the synchronized final day of the regular season -- all 3 PM EDT games on Sunday Oct 2. http://m.mlb.com/news/article/157684628/3-mlb-opening-day-games-on-first-sunday

Cincinnati has made it clear that they're willing to deal anyone and everyone so, yeah, their guys are going to be in the rumor mill all winter. I was thinking how this past season was Frazier's best but, checking the stats, his power jump came with a downturn in getting on base (never his strong suit to begin with - .309 OBP in 2015 and just .321 career) and his K-rate is always high. Plus his 25 1st half HRs turned into 10 over the 2nd half. That, in its own way, is just as streaky as Lucas. I also thought of him as around longer but he didn't break in all that young (age 25, which isn't late but it's also hardly early for a 1st round pick) which is why he has just 4+ years under his belt as he turns 30 this winter. I've also never bought into the idea that David needs to be slid across the diamond as some NYM fans have been trying to do for about 8 years now. He will eventually and maybe even sooner than later. But he also has earned the right to prove himself over a full season before he's the one making accommodations for imported players so, while Frazier's a nice fielder, this isn't the same as the Jeter/ARod situation. And finally, the Frazier/Duda gap is just not enough (if it even exists) to justify this kind of fantasy rearranging of the chess pieces.

Centerfield wrote: Fullmer sounds pretty good. That was not fun at all. Eh, I'd still do the deal again in a second. And he's also not there yet. Don't skip over the usual caveats about how if he DOESN'T develop as hoped they predict a good career as a solid bullpen arm which, if we had kept him, could have led to the 20/20 hindsight lament about how we should have dealt him back in '15 during his one solid year when he peaked in AA. Well, in this case, we did! So, yeah, he'll be a top 50 prospect this winter (prolly even top 25 and top 10 among RHPs) and may go on to have a great career. But I also remember the year Homer Bailey and Phil Hughes were 1 & 1A among pitching prospects (and top 5-10 overall). And while both are in the midst of decent careers, neither are the type you build a franchise around. And if we were reluctant to deal away pitching this year, when could we ever?!?

BASEBALL PROSPECTUS is just starting up their 2016 prospect previews and they happened to kick it off with the Tigers. So just for fun, let's see how they look at what we gave up for two months of Yoenis #1 Michael Fulmer, RHP DOB: 03/15/1993 -- 6’ 3” 200 lbs. -- Bats/Throws: R/R Drafted/Acquired: Drafted 44th overall in the 2011 MLB Draft by the New York Mets; signed for $950,000; acquired in Yoenis Cespedes trade. Previous Ranking(s): NR 2015 Stats: 2.24 ERA, 124 IP, 104 H, 30 BB, 125 K at High-A St. Lucie, Double-A Binghamton, and Double-A Erie. Future Tools: 65 fastball, 60 slider, 50 change Role: 55—Above-average starting pitcher The last few years saw Fulmer show glimpses of what made him a top-50 draft prospect back in 2011, and he finally put it all together in 2015. More than one scout told me that Fulmer was not just the most improved pitcher in the Mets system, but in all of baseball. His fastball took a step up, going from 91-93 mph to consistently sitting in the mid-90s, touching 97. The slider is another plus pitch, an 86-88 offering with hard, downward tilt that he threw for strikes more consistently in 2015 than in previous seasons. He’ll also show an average curveball with some spin and 11-5 break, and a fringe-average change that is the weak link in his development. He’s always thrown strikes, as suggested by his 2.9 BB/9 career mark, but his command experienced a bump up, thanks to an improved ability to repeat his high three-quarters arm slot and delivery. The question marks going forward for Fulmer are whether he can show the same stuff and produce the same results at higher levels while handling a bigger workload (he hasn’t topped the 125-inning mark). If he can, he’s a potential no. 2 starter, with high-leverage reliever a more likely possibility if his health and consistency issues persist. As bad as the Tigers farm still is, Fulmer is a legit top-of-the-system option, and represents a strong return for an impending free agent in Cespedes. #10 Luis Cessa, RHP DOB: 04/25/1992 -- 6’3” 190 lbs. -- Bats/Throws: R/R Drafted/Acquired: Signed July 9, 2008 out of Mexico by the New York Mets; acquired in the Yoenis Cespedes trade. Previous Ranking(s): Unranked 2015 Stats: 4.52 ERA, 139.1 IP, 163 H, 36 BB, 119 K at Double-A Binghamton, Triple-A Las Vegas, and Triple-A Toledo Future Tools: 60 fastball, 50 change Role: 40—Back-end starter/middle-innings reliever The “other” arm acquired in the Cespedes deal, Cessa doesn’t offer the same kind of upside as Fulmer but does have a chance to pitch in a big-league rotation. The fastball is plus, generally sitting 92-94 with some downhill plane and sink, and could play up in shorter spurts because of his arm strength. The change is his best secondary pitch because of his arm speed and it features some late fade. His fringe-average slider will sometimes flatten, but it’s a pitch he throws for strikes with tilt when he finishes the delivery. It’s very much a back-end profile—and Detroit may be tempted to see if the stuff plays up in a bullpen role—but his ability to throw strikes does give him a chance to pitch every fifth day.

Anytime you debut the likes of Syndergaard, Matz, and Conforto in the same season your prospect list is going to take a serious hit.

A bit surprising for Arrieta though it was somewhat close. Voters opted for the better 2nd half by the lone ace over the sustained full season by a co-ace Arrieta: 17 - 11 - 2 (1st, 2nd, 3rd) Greinke: 10 - 17 - 3 Kershaw: 3 - 2 - 23 Cole: 0 - 0 - 2 Scherzer Bumgarner deGrom: two 4th place votes + three 5ths Melancon Lackey

Some decent choices here if only because the various tabs came up with very different takes on the same topic: Less obvious = more interesting HIGHLY ILLOGICAL and NIEUW'S FLASH are better than TRI-UMPHANT Going lower case with the 'DR. d' showed a bit of cleverness as opposed to the hackneyed TO THE BATMOBILE which shows none. I'm guessing that with SANDY'S CHOICE they were going for a SOPHIE'S CHOICE connection but that one is a much bigger stretch than tying in 'Star Trek' in the Kirk headline

And besides, no one is saying that Span is THE option to be taken ahead of all others, only that he's AN option to be considered.

Craig Kimbrel ready to don some Red Sox for 2016 -- traded from the Padres in exchange for four prospects: OF Manuel Margot, SS Javier Guerra, IF Carlos Asuaje, LHP Logan Allen.

Yeah, there's always more than one way to skin el gato. Runs Created/Game (per BB-Ref) Span (2014 + 2015): 5.8, 6.1 Cespedes: 4.6, 6.1 What you give up in power you get back in OBP plus a bushel full of doubles and triples. Now 2015 was only a partial year for Span and 2014 one of his best ones, but the RC numbers between the two are fairly similar given the small-ish sample size of Cespedes's US-based career. And that's all before you bring fielding/running into the equation.

As things stand now, Muffy signing elsewhere would net us the 10th compensation pick (out of a potential 16 QO FAs) after round 1 is over, aka: pick #40. Our existing 1st round pick is #24 Both picks could slide upwards somewhat depending on how the FA season breaks out: where the QO picks sign, if any re-up with their current team, etc.

Had a whole slew of injury problems the past year, one just seemed to lead into another. And, yes, I do think his absence was one of several factors that kept the Nats from being what most expected them to be this past season. Would be the leadoff type of guy we've been missing (especially attractive to those on the 'Get Grandy to the middle of the order' campaign). Would want him short-term though just one year probably isn't possible.

Not knowing much about the prospects involved I'm not really sure what to think of this deal other than the obvious of it being another deal where the Braves are looking forward to a payoff about when their new suburban stadium is ready in two years. John Sickels weighs in here And, as always, do remember that prospects are simply prospects so that just because the Braves got some potentially good ones doesn't make them the equivalent of Jose Fernandez. Some of the reader comments (after Sickels' piece) think this is a decidedly BAD trade for Los Bravos.

He had that great post-season as a fresh out-of-the-box player in that surprise Boston run in 2013 -- then was handed a job for the coming season and pretty much bombed. But that fall was made to look a bit more dramatic that it probably was. Had he not arrived with such a flourish in late 2013 his 2014 mess would have just been seen as the rookie growing pains season that it essentially was rather than a step backwards. I'm on board with trying to upgrade SS as the biggest step we could make this winter and trying to pry this guy out of Beantown would be one of the better moves we could make (better than most of the proposed moves w/the Cubs that have been floated over the last year or so).

Centerfield wrote: My takeaway: FK thinks the Cespedes at-bats are going to Lagares, and to a lesser extent, Cuddyer. Yeah, that's not remotely what I'm saying. I should probably just drop this since nothing's being solved but I'll try just one more quick one. -- All I am doing here is poo-pooing the idea (mostly floated by Mex17) that we're going to sign a top-tier FA OF AND keep all of the current ones under multi-year deals and simply make them high-priced back ups and/or platoon partners for each other or the new import(s). Cespedes was a temporary import brought in for a pennant drive at a time when several OFs (Lagares & Cuddyer) were injured and/or sucking and Conforto had just been brought up. The same 'get out of this guy's way' moves aren't going to be made if/when a permanent replacement w/a multi-year deal is brought in. 1) If Sandy DOES sign a Hayward-type it's going to be INSTEAD OF someone current not in addition to. 2) Signing a complimentary type of player instead (as mentioned in one of the linked articles above) does not condemn the bench to eternal suckiness.

Conclusion: The bullpen next season will wind up with prominent innings being pitched by at least three or four guys who we've never heard of or at least are not discussing now. Why?: Because it always does.

Centerfield wrote: It's just mind-boggling. We're losing Cespedes and Murphy, and the plan is to give those at-bats to Herrera, Lagares and Cuddyer? All three had an OPS in the .600's. Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. Can we please not fall into the trap, just one week into the off-season, of making up the outcome for the sole purpose of criticizing the both the process and the result? Mex17 wrote: I am also not even talking about Upton or Heyward in this particular discussion But it was Rubin's comment about not pursuing a FA who would toss Lagares to the bench that got you started on this 'WAH we're killing the team' jag in the first place. Somehow in all this you missed the line -- the one that started it off -- about how "The New York Mets are shopping for a center fielder". Not wanting to "displace" Juan is not the same as saying you're handing him 600 ABs You are basically arguing against having team depth (or, if not you, then Rubin or the front office is). Please stop. Middle infield is just fine with what we have. Wow, I'm a lot more concerned with the middle infield than I am with the OF.

Nymr83 wrote: Why does everyone assume Ken Griffey Jr. didn't do steroids? Why should there be any presumption of guilt? Nobody has ever specifically accused Griffey that I know of. There have never been criminal proceedings or failed drug tests (official or leaked) that we know of. its actually pretty absurd to even have to "defend" him (or Piazza or Bagwell) Not that there should be a presumption of guilt, but not an automatic assumption of innocence either. And that's pretty much been the history of the post-steroid era*: the tendency to think of those who were caught as lepers while guys who haven't are looked to as virtues of sport - when in fact the difference may only be that one name was leaked while the other never was; or that one got caught up in the very first sample testing so is thought of as dirty forever while another could have used more or for longer but simply wasn't snagged in that original trial. * well, not post-steroids but the post-steroid reveal era

OK, I'll try once more. The Mets currently have three OFs under multi-year deals plus Conforto, which means that if they go out to sign a premier FA OF it's not going to be [u:gkoa48ri]in addition[/u:gkoa48ri] to what they already have but [u:gkoa48ri]instead of[/u:gkoa48ri] one or more of them. If you want to argue for that strategy then fine, but a top FA isn't coming here to platoon and the team isn't moving Granderson (their best offensive player this past year) nor LAGARES (a 26 y/o GG CF) to a backup/PH role. If you want to keep those guys and merely reduce their roles then it's going to be for a lesser, more platoon-type of import, not the likes of Heyward or Upton or Adam Jones.

Gwreck wrote: Why does everyone assume Ken Griffey Jr. didn't do steroids? . Because it's easier for many folks to simply divide this topic into guilty vs not witout distinctions for 'maybe' or for shades of gray within either side.

Adam Rubin dashes Heyward hopes: BOCA RATON, Fla. -- The New York Mets are shopping for a center fielder, but they are not interested in bringing in a free agent who would limit Juan Lagares to a bench role. The Mets made a sizable financial commitment to Lagares on the eve of this past season that guarantees him $2.5 million in 2016, $4.5 million in 2017, $6.5 million in 2018 and $9 million in 2019. The hope is to add a player capable of manning center field who can complement Lagares. Mets don't want to displace Juan Lagares with outfield addition The article also includes this little gem: The Mets would have to weigh at that point whether in-house options such as Kirk Nieuwenhuis and Darrell Ceciliani may be just as attractive. OH GOD FORBID THAT THEY HAVE A STRONG BENCH!!!!! LET'S INSTEAD PURPOSELY MAKE THE TEAM WORSE THAN WHAT IS POSSIBLE SO THAT JUAN LAGARES CAN BE CODDLED!! The point is (as discussed in the other thread) that if you bring in a top FA it would be for the purpose of replacing an incumbent like Lagares not with the idea of platooning with him. No FA at or near his prime is going to sign up for a part-time job or a short-term one, and the Mets aren't going to shelve Lagares to a once a week start/PH status for the next several seasons just a year after committing to a multi-year deal to him.

Mex17 wrote: A handy-dandy synopsis of the major players for this winter. Forget the predictions, those are just guess-work anyway, but the write-ups can be useful. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=27844 What possible need would the Mets have for Mike Leake? Told ya not to look at the predictions.

A handy-dandy synopsis of the major players for this winter. Forget the predictions, those are just guess-work anyway, but the write-ups can be useful. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=27844