metsmarathon

fangraphs' contract crowdsourcing exercise yielded an expected contract for bartolo colon of 1 year at $10M. so the mets are coming out ahead here. but let me put it another way, to reframe the argument with different goalposts. looking at next year's projection for colon, steamer via fangraphs has him projected to a 3.77 ERA, 3.89 FIP over 128 innings. a pitcher whose been bandied about this offseason as going to a bunch of potential suitors, not as a top of the rotation guy but as a solid mid-rotation piece, is mike leake. both have mediocre strikeout numbers of 6ish k/9. colon actually strikes out more than leake. he also has way, way better control, walking half as many batters per 9. but the comparison I'm driving towards here is that leake is projected to 2 WAR over 203 innings - the same rate as colon given the same number of innings. (colon is projected to have a better FIP 3.88 to 4.13, and a better ERA 3.77 to 4.13 than leake) leake is being talked about as a 4 year, $15M kind of investment for some teams. and fangraphs crowdsourcing exercise had him at 5x$14M. in colon, we would be looking at about the same production for half the cost, no long term commitment, the flexibility to put him willingly into the pen, the intangibles of his experience, and the entertainment of experiencing him. $8M is a pretty good value for what we can expect to get from colon.

last year, bartolo colon produced about 2.5 WAR, per fangraphs. bbref has him at 1.0 WAR. the difference is htat fangraphs uses, I believe FIP whereas bbref uses RA9. steamer projects him to be about 1.3 WAR this year, but that's in 124 innings or so. the going transactional price of a single WAR is currently $8M, meaning on the free agent market, you're spending about $8M to get back 1 WAR in production ($16M for 2 WAR, etc). by that metric, howevermuch validity you may assign it, bartolo is a value signing.

Edgy MD wrote: what borderline case has it pushed a guy in on? it seems to be a door that swings only one way. Three broadly admired guys that come to mind who made it in by the skin of their teeth: Gary Carter, Bill Mazeroski, and Red Schoendienst. I can't testify to the mind of every (or perhaps any) voter, but their (alleged) elevated integrity certainly was presented with their cases. I'm not sure why Gary Carter's case shouldn't be treated as borderline, as it took him six ballots. The Hall had been very stingy on catchers in the years after Bench's election. Ted Simmons, Darrell Porter, and Lance Parrish didn't sniff any support. Carlton Fisk finally broke the logjam in 2000. I also don't know why these things cited on their plaques shouldn't matter except in borderline cases. Your claim was that they don't appear at all. You're moving the goalposts on me. well, fine. I guess I'm wrong. it just seems to me that when people start going about making hall of fame cases for players nowadays - and maybe I'm myself no noticing it or paying attention to it or seeing that it's a factor at all - he discussion revolves primarily if not exclusively on their performance on the field. that everything else is all icing on the cake, and a way to say something extra nice about a good player, to tell why we should care if a guy gets the nod. it does not feel to me that it is a factor in the decision, that it even moves the needle, except in the negative. and perhaps I'm wrong. I guess i'll have to look closer. though right now, it's a hell of a lot harder to do that, because, rose aside, the only character and integrity the voters care about it if they guess or surmise that a player used PEDs, and all else be damned. carter may well be a borderline case based on the fact that he was not a first-ballot guy, but he shouldn't have been, as his playing career clearly merited it. actually, it might be possible to take on a view, just for the sake of being argumentative, that if character and integrity and sportsmanship and contributing to a team really meant a damn, that carter should've sailed in easier, no? Jackie's comps are a difficult lot. however, one thing that's missing is that those guys are all 25-ish WAR guys, whereas Jackie was a 61 WAR guy, per bbref. and of that, it's predominantly offensive value. now, I'm not suggesting that he was voted in because of his WAR, but that, in hindsight, if robinson was not voted in for his on-the-field accomplishments, he should have been, and would have been deserving, and should not have been a borderline candidate. sorry for moving the goalposts. I just like seeing the players crash into them. hooray, chaos!

There's a huge difference between rose and bonds, et al. With ped users, you know that the actual competition on the field is legit. The talent may be fraudulent, but the outcome is legit. With Pete, you don't know if the game was won or lost legitimately, or if the outcome was doctored.

You acknowledge up front that these assessments have made a difference, but hen deny that further down. I miscommunicate my lack of acknowledgement, then persist in denying it. Character and sportsmanship aresn't supposed to be everything. They're supposed to be a factor. And they are. While it's explicitly listed as a qualifying factor (and always has been), there's nothing farcical about people honoring that. There are borderline cases that have been swung either way by assessments of a guy's character. what borderline case has it pushed a guy in on? it seems to be a door that swings only one way. As for Rose, it makes little sense to give a guy baseball's highest honor while he's banned. I'm rooting for Rose, as much as he doesn't deserve it. But induction the Baseball Hall of Fame, should it happen, shouldn't be the first step in his rehabilitation. It should be the last. it would highlight his career, and his performance on the field. And yes, there are plaques that mention players' character. Gary Carter: "AN EXUBERANT ON-FIELD GENERAL WITH A SIGNATURE SMILE... . ... TIRELESS WORK ETHIC ... ." Jackie Robinson: "DISPLAYED TREMENDOUS COURAGE AND POISE IN 1947 WHEN HE INTEGRATED THE MODERN MAJOR LEAGUES IN THE FACE OF INTENSE ADVERSITY." Cal Ripken, Jr: "ARRIVED AT THE BALLPARK EVERY DAY WITH A BURNING DESIRE TO PERFORM AT HIS HIGHEST LEVEL. DEDICATION AND WORK ETHIC RESULTED IN... ." And the moral degeneracy of Ty Cobb, as unpleasant a character as he might have been, is greatly overstated. well fine. I certainly could've researched that one a tad. but none of these guys were borderline. the closest is Jackie, I guess, but it's not like his playing career didn't or wouldn't've merited it by its lonesome.

Edgy MD wrote: metsmarathon wrote: so, silly question. have they ever voted anybody into the hall based on their integrity, sportsmanship, or character? 100%? Of course not. I imagine it's made a difference (one way or the other) in a handful of otherwise borderline cases, though. I also imagine it's made a difference in the ultimate vote total of otherwise not-borderline cases, if that matters. well, that's basically my point though. setting aside the whole steroids question, has there really been a player who was not voted in for his playing record, first and foremost? the writers don't go talking about players in the waning stages of their careers as "fred's sportsmanship is off the charts. the way he congratulates opposing hitters when they hit home runs, he's paving his way to the hall of fame" or "there goes billy again, arguing with the ump that he really was out on that play. that kind of integrity is going to get him into the hall after he finally calls it a career" or "after every game, chet goes down to the children's hospital and spends his game check paying for cancer treatments of all the kids - he's been doing it every day of his career now; he's a hall of famer if I've ever seen one." no, it's all about the playing record, and to a lesser extent the wibbly wobbly contributions to his team thing. I guess that means winning instead of losing. unless the writers decide they really need something to make a fuss over. then, all of a sudden, oh, this guy didn't have enough character, even though his playing career makes him so much more than a borderline case. honestly, though, I don't give too much of a flying fuck about pete rose getting into the hall. the inconsistency of the application of the voting standards is what gets me. if character, sportsmanship, and integrity mattered a damn, ty cobb would be nowhere near that place, and Gaylord perry would be persona non grata. it's all about the playing career. the rest of that shit is just blah blah blah, lets talk nice about the guys we're enshrining - I'm sure they're just wonderful people. but it's all about the playing career. you know what's on the plaques under the relief images of the players enshrined in the hall? playing record. not a record of their sportsmanship. not a record of their integrity. not a record of their character. playing career. lets stop the farce. "pete rose. Charlie hustle, hit king, etc. he bet on baseball as a player and manager, and received a lifetime ban from baseball in 1989"

so, silly question. have they ever voted anybody into the hall based on their integrity, sportsmanship, or character?

It's possible that our plan is to wait out the market and watch cespedes' value tumble until to better suits our interests. And if that's true and if it works out for us, then it will have been well played. And if not, it may well be a fucking disaster.

i'll take a measured approach to my discontent with heyward going to the cubs. for now. it's a hefty price to pay, but he's probably worth it, and would have fit rather well here. i'm still willing to see how the rest of the offseason pans out. i was disappointed we didnt get zobrist, but am happier that we ended up with walker. (and confused by cabrera...) what is our plan b for this one?

At second base, walker is not rangey, but has a good glove and arm. an upgrade over murphy, who was not rangey and definitely not not a good glove. At shortstop, Cabrera is somewhat not rangey, and has a fairly good glove and arm. an upgrade, possibly, over flores, who was somewhat rangey, but had an error-prone arm. he compares a bit with tejada who is also not terribly rangey, and was terribly not rangey last year, but has a good glove and arm. flores, for the record, looks to be a better defender at second, with good range, and a good glove and arm. he's had no throwing errors there in 450 innings, and only one fielding error. yeah, I know - small sample size. flores is probably our super-utility player, providing meaningful backup at three infield positions, and is a good bat to have on the bench in case you need to hit for Cabrera late in a game. he could even be used as a defensive replacement at second. alternatively, Cabrera could be our super-utility player, leaving flores to mature as a hitter, but freeing him up to move to third if the need arises. tejada is probably our backup shortstop, and would come in there as a defensive replacement. I kinda like the flexibility, but don't fully understand the rush on it. unless tejada is more of a question mark than we thought, or if there's a move coming for flores.

Okay... This is interesting. Wilmer as super-ute, or should I be really really worried about wright?

I'm hoping that this move, which I love btw, paves the way for a Heyward signing. Also the Mets could get a pick out of walker if he walks at the end of the year.

Actually I guess it does make sense. Didn't Wilmer just break a bone in winter ball? And Reuben is of course recovering from his own utley-owie. So.. Maybe it is kinda a good sort of move after all....?

upton has more pop, but heyward has a higher average, and seems to currently be capable of sustaining a higher obp. both project (using steamer projections on fangraphs) to be virtually identical in terms of aggregate offensive production next season, and heyward is younger. upton is not a good defensive left fielder and has never played centerfield in the majors. heyward is a great defensive outfielder with tremendous range who can play centerfield, and apparently quite well in a small sample size. I expect both to get comparable deals this winter. I expect heyward to be a better value. (and to be a far better value than cespedes) of the top outfield candidates, heyward is also the best fit for the mets. I really hope we can get him.

If you think of him more as a centerfielder now (which he would be for the first few years) and as a corner outfielder later, his production seems a little bit more gooder, no? I don't necessarily buy into the corner outfield must be a slugger thing. I wants me WARs and I wants them wherever and however I can gets them.

minimm still hasn't seen revenge of the sith (and I can't remember if he's seen attack of the clones). unfortunately, I don't think he's really ready to see the force awakens, even though it opens just two short days after his 6th birthday. I didn't do machete order, and ended up with a kid who liked jar jar binks. dangit. he's really not ready for revenge of the sith though... I might have to queue up the original trilogy again instead. get the µmm's into it early.

given the choice between heyward and cespedes, for similar dollars, I'd go heyward a million times. if we're to overpay for somebody this offseason, heyward is the man.

oops. it was jj hardy, not rickie weeks. a dollar on mejia is probably better placed than a dollar on hardy. though the hardy dollar was mostly done to avoid actually penalizing the receiving team, I'm guessing.

once you award a dollar, as long as the deadline hasn't passed, you just change the $1 to a $0 on the respective team page, and reassign your dollar as you please.

just thought I'd start up a new thread for the next season, as we're basically all done with the last one, having concluded salary arbitrations. as has been mentioned on the otto board, my one friend the philly phan, hungrypup, is dropping out. it seems he can't pay enough attention to the league during the week to remain competitive (though it was mostly his drafting and keeping that sunk him), and is dropping out. I have another friend (a mets fan in easton assassins) whose uncle (not sure if he's a mets fan) is interested in joining. any objections? any other takers? any other dirty no-good dropouts? I'm looking forward to all the interesting keeper decisions that come down the road. I'm also still trying to figure out why anyone would've put arbitration dollars on ricky weeks. honestly.... I.. just don't get it.

i think it would finally offer the opportunity to fully embrace doc and darryl...

tgat would be a hell of a landmark... A new naming agreement.

if it means more money for metly rosters, I'm totally okay with it. coke is a better product (just ask Harvey, I've heard) than pepsi on warm summer days anyways.

Mr. Met and the Coke polar bear are supposed to be attending the NYSE stock bell ringing on Monday, indicating deal with Coke in the offing. Met sponsor-sellers are busy: Got email last week that the club will announce deets shortly of the 2016 Mr. Met Kids Club Presented by Melissa & Doug. Those 2 couldn't be bothered to present shit the last couple of years. I've got some Melissa & Doug farm magnets on my fridge. Melissa & Doug make some quality wooden toys for munchkins.

If we're going to trade harvey for a guy with a $200m contract, why not keep Harvey and give him the money?