Ceetar

Edgy MD wrote: Thank you, Maria. And again, I sincerely apologize for wrecking your wedding. Also notable about this hire: It leaves the Mets without a catcher/catching instructor on the big league staff. speaking of new hires, Maria's new on the beat for.. i dunno, one of the NJ dead tree places.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Since Fred does whatever Bud asks of him -- don;t wear those service hats, hire a minority GM, etc etc -- he didn't need to be "forced." They certainly required MLB's cooperation in getting him to come over considering they employed him at the time. glad they don't wear those hats. And I think they liked Omar with or without MLB. MLB should probably do more pushing of minority candidates than they've done. They did interview 5 other people and chose Alderson, though I don't think any of the other 5 got GM jobs since, so perhaps you could call them token interviews in a fixed race. But MLB saying "Hey, Alderson's looking to GM again, interview him" is a lot different than them manipulating the process to keep the Wilpons around by making sure they toe the line. At least in the sense that most of the owners were probably pretty buddy-buddy with the commissioner and it's how they get favors like supporting pet causes and All-Star games done.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Regarding the "Alderson signing" as noted elsewhere I don't think the Wilpons decided one day they needed a team of people who knew what they were doing at the helm so much as their lenders demanded they get some. I don't think I buy that story. I'm sure there was pressure, maybe even MLB pressure, to get financially profitable again, at least from a strict team-revenue vs. team-payroll standpoint. (Plus the rough adherence to this as a budget could support that view) and maybe they let them know Sandy was willing to GM again. Maybe they even suggested he'd be a good fit, but I definitely don't think they forced their hand or demanded that they hire him. And from Sandy's side, I don't think he would've taken the job had it been an assignment from MLB.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceets we don;t really disagree -- I think the Wilpons want to win, and do try, and sometimes succeed, and aren't clever enough to be pulling wool over our eyes. What I meant was I don't think they're bright enough to discern the difference between things that work and processes that result in things that work, and that due to their being often threadbare and easily influenced by the appearance of things they by default shoot for the first option all the time. This also explains why for parts or all of the Braves Era they missed the boat on Moneyball, couldn't develop a decent prospect if their lives depended on it, underinvested in the draft and staffing, and challenged them seriously only once or twice in that 15 year stretch. Of course that's true of the other three teams as well. I think there was some solid process after Moneyball, though not as fast. Duquette started it and Minaya didn't dismantle it, though maybe they didn't push it as hard as they should've. Perhaps the Wilpons get giddy when things start to work, like in '09/'10 after failures but with still a good team and a new stadium. Maybe that's when they get too involved, desperately clinging as things start to fade and they trust the GM less and they mess up the process. They probably waited at least a year too long to switch again, but the Alderson signing seemed like good process and so did promoting Terry. Minor league coordinator who knew a lot of the prospects we knew were coming up. Seemed like good process and he turned out to be..fine enough. I can't speak to the 90s process as I wasn't paying as much attention and didn't know as much as I do now. The Mitchell Report made it seem like they had the right process (amphetamines and steroids) they just had the wrong guys taking them.

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Why do most reports seem to indicate the Wilpons don't really meddle that much? I give up. Uncle. I know this is one of those "I won't believe this report because it doesn't fit my narrative" swing things, but it does seem like there are more 'Wilpons aren't involved in these decisions" comments than not.

Wait, is he wanting to win but unwilling to fully commit to it? why? how? Or does he hope he wins and just vetoes expensive guys he doesn't like? Why would GMs work like that? Why do most reports seem to indicate the Wilpons don't really meddle that much? He didn't just get Mo Vaughn though, there was also Roberto Alomar, who was literally 50% better than average the year before. Plus Vaughn was actually fine in 2002, similar to 2000. I don't know that the Mets were expecting 34 off an injury Vaughn to be '98 Vaughn. The real problem was all the starts they gave to Estes, Astacio and D'Amico. Did Giambi not want to come here? I dunno. I doubt that, if they'd paid him. I'm not sure if that would've been wise either.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: It seems to me to be more a failure to be on the cutting edge or at least out in front of changing landscapes than it does some wicked conspiracy to try just hard enough to appear to be trying without actually trying This is the most brilliantly phrased thing you've ever written here (bold italicized). Concise, punchy and right to the point. Too bad you wrote it mainly to strike it down. Because the idea that they're only making token moves to appear to be interested but don't actually fool anyone is absurd. What, they just lucked into the various success, however brief, over the years?

d'Kong76 wrote: What does that have to do with a decade-and-a-half of living in the shadow of the Braves? Tell us, Ceetar! Tell us! well, we made the playoffs twice during that stretch (And also ended said stretch) and the World Series once. Just feels like the pitchers and Chipper had a lot more to do with it than the Wilpons. I mean, I was as annoyed as anyone they didn't get A-Rod (and/or Vlad) and other ancillary pieces to avoid the 99-00 team falling to pieces, but it felt like more of a misunderstanding of the true value of baseball players and of the growing market and salaries. It seems to me to be more a failure to be on the cutting edge or at least out in front of changing landscapes than it does some wicked conspiracy to try just hard enough to appear to be trying without actually trying. Which, btw, if you think is what they're doing, they're clearly failing at it. Not that I think they prioritize a playoff berth every year, but that's true of every team. Profitability and sustained competitiveness so fans stay interested in the product.

and yet the Mets are arguably the most successful expansion franchise.

d'Kong76 wrote: Centerfield wrote: I take it back. Win every year! Sprinkled with a few more World Championships than they netted, please. Another good thing about winning every year in NY is that you can afford to not lose all cheap pitching with all the added revenue. Assuming the Mets will one day spend like a NY team. and based on supply/demand, playoff ticket prices (At least secondary ones) will come down.

RealityChuck wrote: The team wants to continue to contend, not just contend next year. Especially when next year might the easiest year to contend of the next few.

Centerfield wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Edgy MD wrote: the Wilpons are just way too emotionally involved in the perception of the club as a brand. This is absolutely true. Which is why it makes no sense that they would sit back and allow themselves to be raked over the coals over not spending. They certainly have room in their budget to get a big name outfielder if they wanted one. Which makes me wonder about your "lender-restriction" theory. I really wonder if the Wilpons agreed to some "no contract more than 4 years" type of clause. It would explain their absolute fawning over 35 year old Zobrist but their complete disregard of 26 year old Heyward. Seems like there are times when it would've been the Mets MO to give stupid money to decent-hitting Heyward to prove that they could.

Mostly bleh and I'd be surprised if the Mets actually signed him for more than peanuts and gave him anything more than the Kirk role.

I said "that's cool, I want one" and underestimated the demand. Oops. Not like I wear hats though anyway.too warm.

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: A. They are better. B. The Nationals are worse. C. Heyward isn't that good. D. There are other players. E. It's December, not April. I hope that orange and blue lollipop lasts all winter and you can bring it to spring training. Centerfield wrote: The Cubs are significantly better than they were in October. The Mets have taken a big step back. This is clear thinking, maybe two big steps back... and with no apparent plan to do anything significant on the horizon. I wouldn't be surprised if they just shut down things until mid-January. It's not a lollipop it's a pennant and it's delicious. Most teams are relatively quiet between mid Dec and mid-Jan, but there's really no indication the Mets are done, or have taken a step back. Especially in relation to the Nats.

d'Kong76 wrote: Flushing all the pitching down the toilet with no improvements made. They're not going to be Mets forever. I can't believe more people aren't outraged. A. They are better. B. The Nationals are worse. C. Heyward isn't that good. D. There are other players. E. It's December, not April.

Edgy MD wrote: Hard to tell how much is Sandy at the stick right now and how much is Ricco*. I'm also curious how much commitment I should show to the idea that Ricco is the designated successor, rather than Ricciardi or DePodesta. * OE: Or Jeff Wilpon! I think Ricco's the designated interim guy (he was last time too right?) and the others have more regular duties that you don't want to pull them away from. But this question might become relevant pretty fast.

"Waah, the Mets signed Cabrera who hit like Cespedes in the second half and plays a better position, that must mean they're cheap because they didn't do what I wanted them to!"

of qualifying SS last year, Asdrubal was 7th by fWAR and 4th by wRC+ so it's not like a better SS is out there. Crawford, Bogaerts, or Peralta are the ones that out run-created Asdrubal last year (Although Tulo may be getting too much of a park adjusted hit for Coors) and they're not particularly available anymore. (Should've signed Peralta when he was a FA)

Yes, but Cabera DOES play SS better than everyone else on the Mets overall, and Kelly Johnson isn't really a much better hitter than he is. (and wasn't real good on defense either) Just because YOU think the Mets have to sign a big-bopper outfielder, doesn't mean it's the right move. I imagine you've written off Cuddyer and Lagares as mostly worthless at this point where the Mets haven't.

I really don't like Cabrera much, but this deal is relatively low and I guess I get it. Depth is certainly important. I think this harkens back to the second half last year. They really seemed to enjoy the flexibility of guys playing multiple positions and able to rest and rotate guys. This definitely puts them in that category (And so would've Zobrist). (It also speaks to Colon I think, who maybe they're pitching as a swing guy that they tested out in that role last year and can move around and pitch whenever) Cabrera isn't great, but he is better than Flores in both defense and offense. Walker has better range too, and the Mets swapped out Niese, who had the highest GB rate on the staff, for likely more of Matz's strikeouts. So helps on the run prevention side too. Marginal, but Flores was straight up bad at times. I expect to hear Flores/Tejada trade rumors all offseason, all spring, and with every Matt Reynolds or Dilson Herrera home run.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Blevins may or may not return, but I suspect Asdrubal gets 13. Walker probably gets 18 from Tueful? He could move to 19 (Monell) Yeah you should probably know I tackled this issue this morning. Walker will get 18, Teufel will take 11 when Tejada gets bounced (I can't see him sticking around). http://www.mbtn.net/?p=2454 I should've figured but I didn't check. I'll just go retweet that instead. I'm not so sure Tejada goes away though.

Blevins may or may not return, but I suspect Asdrubal gets 13. Walker probably gets 18 from Tueful? He could move to 19 (Monell)

Lefty Specialist wrote: Would just like to know what the deal is with Montero. He was The Next Big Thing and just fell off the table. Is he hurt? Mentally unbalanced? Cursed? He was a control guy with a good fastball that came up and walked the ballpark, and never seems to have fully recovered. It's been mostly silent on that front, which isn't comforting. I'm not comfortable with the current roster as per 5th starter. Want one more guy. Would prefer someone better and younger than Colon. Fister maybe? I wouldn't even worry myself about the rotation getting clogged. If it happens, it happens, and you trade someone. There will be roughly 50 pitchers (that might be low) on the DL between now and then.

I definitely saw a "If the Mets do get Zobrist it might not be the only thing they do at the Meetings" tweet early on Tuesday.