Edgy MD

I realize that post-season revenues are a paramount concern for the powers that be, but I'm appreciating that the discussion is taking place here apart from that.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=111656 time=1666296217 user_id=68]I think that the best solution is to simply understand that the playoffs winner, especially an expanded playoffs winner isn't necessarily the best team in the respective sport.

=Ceetar post_id=111649 time=1666294470 user_id=102]it's differently true every offseason, for every team.

I like that the nominees for the utility player included a classic 2b/3b/ss utility infielder (Tommy Erdman), an infielder/outfielder (Brendan Donovan), and a catcher/outfielder (Daulton Varsho). Sorry not to see the Mets classic 2b/3b/ss utility infielder (Luis Guillorme), or infielder/outfielder (Jeff McNeil) there. I agree that nominating a guy as both a specialist and a generalist would seem to be beyond the spirit of the category.

I move to disagree with that.

I would like to award the best team — or, at least, the team that performs the best.

I don't think you use the word "instructive" in the sense that I do. As for "if the Mets had another above average starting pitcher under contract, it would lessen there need this offseason," that's true, but it's true every offseason, with every team. Still, there's a limit to the number of MLB starting pitchers a team can stockpile.

Extremely instructive. Understood.

Because it's the sort of thing I'd rather have meaningful amount of evidence for. I think Occam's Razor would suggest the Mets simply didn't see him as worth what it would cost to sign him. Billy Eppler had only been on the job for two weeks at the time, so it was a tough time to make big commitments. Also, they were working on bigger. If you're going to make a mistake, letting someone walk in free agency is almost always the mistake to make, because you get a second chance to do right with the money you didn't spend. Baseball-reference credits Marcus Stroman with 2.5 WAR, and fangraphs says 2.0. The best of those two figures suggests he cost $10,000,000 per WAR. I don't think his case is particularly instructive in confronting the decisions the team will have with regard to Jacob deGrom.

Two things I feel leery about chasing are power and size. Fairly or unfairly, I associate both with rapid declines.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Almost any trade for a veteran is interesting in retrospect, especially if they happen in season. "Mets Land Berenyi" or "Mets Make Swap for Baerga" is always useful because these deals get debated forever and we sometimes make claims about what the thinking was at the time. Because you asked for it: http://leaptoad.com/mets/clipping.php?filename=00313.jpgMets get Reds' Berenyi http://leaptoad.com/mets/clipping.php?filename=00314.jpgMet Gamble: Kent, Viz dealt for iffy Baerga It's funny how memory can be faulty. I was sure that Baerga's first name was "Carlos", but it turns out it was "Iffy". Iffy Baerga. Nice! Eddie Williams was the prize in that deal, but Jay Tibbs ended up having the stronger career, including a really strong rookie year. I guess Lindor's second year suggests all-star infielders from Cleveland don't always crash in New York after all.

I think that there'd be plenty of the equivalent of game seven. Seven's just a number. High stakes would abound for everybody.

Pedro Martinez just called 'em "The Indians" on the pre-game. Whoops.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Maybe there can be some kind of next-season incentive for the teams to win the meaningless games? (Can't think of anything specific though. Maybe Dunkin Donuts in the clubhouse? I suspect there may be better possible incentives than that.) The easiest way to incentivize winning is with draft picks. I can think of easier ways to incentivize winning — promotion and relegation, cash rewards, the right to claim contracts of players from losing teams, vacation stays in Cabo San Lucas, or a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco treat. The sooner the draft ends, the better.

Almost any trade for a veteran is interesting in retrospect, especially if they happen in season. "Mets Land Berenyi" or "Mets Make Swap for Baerga" is always useful because these deals get debated forever and we sometimes make claims about what the thinking was at the time. Also, stories announcing big-ticket draft picks make for good reading much later.

Yeah, I'm there. In my world, the playoffs are eliminated, and even the World Series isn't safe, but not expecting to see my world come to pass anytime soon, I'd much prefer Centerfield's world to the one I inhabit.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Marty Noble was wrong on that one, wasn't he? It's what's missed in the Seaver-fumble story. During the short time the free-agent compensation draft existed, there developed a tradition, to the extent that it can be called a tradition, of exposing high cost veterans. The idea would be that someone who just lost a free agent because they didn't want to bloat their payroll wouldn't want a veteran whose contract is paying him for what he did in previous years. So the Mets exposed the Seavers, the Fosters, and the Kingmen in order to protect the Gaffs and the Gardners. There also seemed to be some sort of gentleman's agreement in place that such franchise-identifying players wouldn't be gobbled. Now, the logic of both those notions clearly had its limits. Some veterans were eventually going to be seen as worth it, and some owner was going to see that the gentleman's agreement was just a way of screwing over those teams with compensation picks — for a second time, after the first time was losing their player in free agency. None of that should excuse the Mets' decision, but Cashen exposing Seaver shouldn't be seen as some sort of oversight. He was just behaving as most every other team was behaving and betting on safety in numbers. Not so much. Kingman was released two weeks later. He cleared waivers and was signed only two months later at the end of spring training. So yeah, these contracts were pretty untouchable, but the Sox correctly concluded that Seaver still had some value.

1/18/1984 "Seaver's Status No Cause for Alarm" I remembereth this item completely.

That is intriguing. Another upside is that a team who has a good season but doesn't cut it in the post-season, not only has 15 games to right their ship, but fans have 15 games to process that the run is perhaps ending. And if their last few games are spoiler games, that's something.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I feel like I'm the only one beating this drum, but MLB needs the equivalent of an MLS Supporters Shield now, a big shiny piece of metal given to the team with the best regular season record. At some point, maybe winning the regular season will hold more significance than the tournament at the end. Only one my spleen! I demand this at a bare minimum!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Yes, but is it worth $40 million per year? I wouldn't bet on it. We don't actually know what the numbers are yet.

My best days are behind me, but there's still a meaningful value to what I have left. Tylor Megill has virtually a whole career ahead of him, including what are likely to be his best days. I think most teams would prefer what Jacob deGrom has left to what Megill has left.

Well, his price won't come down if they forget about him. Also, we don't actually know what his price is. We'll see. I see the value of treating oneself as the party that is hard to get, but we're working from assumptions here, are we not?

=whippoorwill post_id=111414 time=1665968602 user_id=79] I picked Phillies ONLY because Padres beat our Mets and their unis look like a dirty diaper

Why forget about him before the free agency period has started and before his price has been set? They have exclusive negotiating rights with him right now. To forget about him now is throw away an asset nobody else has.