Ceetar

d'Kong76 wrote: Exaggerating, backpedaling, waffling... gonna be a long winter. Oh, cause that's different from the regular season or anybody else here? Zobrist is awesome. He's one of the best free agent hitters the Mets can get, plays good defense, and fits in positions they don't have locked down. And it's not like he's likely to get 6/150. The risk, inherent in any player really, of him not being good at the end of the contract isn't the end of the world to eat, even for the Mets.

d'Kong76 wrote: Please be reasonable, no player is solely responsible for losing four games out of five... nor would BZ change that so dramatically. I'm clearly exaggerating but having another player be good rather than bad would definitely have made things a hell of a lot closer. Zobrist is a hell of a lot better than Murphy and I'm just trying to understand why everyone is underrating him. Hell, his career OPS+ is better than Heyward too. The only real drawback positionally is third where you'd obviously like to have someone to backup Wright that doesn't suck. but the biggest question marks in terms of offensive production is MI and LF and Zobrist can play all of those. And he's going to provide more oWAR than Flores and Tejada. There's a fair chance that's true even in Zobrist's age 37 2019.

d'Kong76 wrote: Just for more posterity, Ceets... Zobrist would have made the Mets not lose the WS 4 games to 1? Tell me in my right ear, that's my good one. I mean, the games were close and Daniel Murphy sucked and made critical errors and Zobrist was good. It's not really a stretch to see it going differently if you swapped them.

d'Kong76 wrote: Just for posterity, put me down for a NO on Zobrist. He ain't that special. Mock me in September if he's the golden child. if the Mets had Zobrist instead of Murphy they'd be world champs.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure why you're asking. No, he shouldn't be disqualified. I'm just tempted to vote for Rizzo ahead of him. I'm asking because WPA measures how much his actual hits contributed to wins, rather than the average value of getting said hit. If we're extrapolating his hits to how much they helped his team get a win, that means that the win itself is meaningful towards the MVP. As such, the ultimate goal is the playoffs, and that didn't happen. If it's important he has to be knocked down a bit, if not disqualified, because ultimately he wasn't valuable _enough_. In the sense that the 85-90th wins that he didn't get them to are worth more.

the "try to be our Zobrist" thing is faulty. No one's going to be our Zobrist because Zobrist is special. We can try to find/use/keep a utility guy that's a decent option, but that's a different discussion. A guy like Kelly Johnson that you don't really have to play, and don't really want as a regular starter, but is a perfectly acceptable replacement/fill-in/etc. But he's not.._good_. Zobrist is a legitimate hitter that improves the lineup. Zobrist doesn't just improve the lineup, he improves it with the added flexibility of being able to be maneuvered defensively to pick the best other player to put in the lineup too. You could even just think of Zobrist as a 2B and it's a reasonable move.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: You really think it's a feature-not-a-bug thing, this vagueness? I'm not necessarily disagreeing; it's just that I've always just kind of assumed they just erred in leaving the Hall and award guidelines so vague-- a win for poetics over clarity, if you will. I mean 3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort. I have a hard time reading that as anything other than "Hey, was this guy cool? gave you quotes? took you to the cool parties?" and this. There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. seems pretty clearly not meant to be objective.

Edgy MD wrote: But look at those numbers. He had the worst relative clutch performance in the National League. And so what we're doing by giving him the MVP is rewarding him for theoretical runs he would have produced in an all-situations-are-equal environment, but denying Rizzo, who actually produced more runs in real life. but like, if you're going to use the heavily luck-based clutch argument, shouldn't he be disqualified for not actually getting his team to the postseason? Of course the MVP award, much like the Hall of Fame, is designed to spark discussion/argument by being purposely vague and subjective about what we're voting on.

and game 2 moved to Tuesday. Mets will leave Matz in Florida and carry a DH for the first two (7) games until they need him on the 12th.

Clearly winning didn't give the writers any more creativity.

d'Kong76 wrote: Thanks, it's the first I've read any of his stuff hahaha he also loves spoilers.

d'Kong76 wrote: I believe it's a Rubin thing, and he does get quoted here and there an awful lot as reliable but whatever... Rubin's a throw everything against the wall and see what sticks guy. If someone connected with the Mets in some way ponders out loud to him that it might be wise to just cut Tejada loose, he reports it without qualifiers, pretending he's unaware that it fits into a nice predefined narrative.

d'Kong76 wrote: Tejada may not be around to be in that mix according to some. I don't think we have a Tejada thread but his price tag goes up next year via arbitration and they may not want to pay him? mostly b.s. rumormongering i suspect. he still might be the best SS they have.

Zobrist's wRC+ over the last four years is 123 to Murphy's 108. Zobrist also plays the outfield. His defense is better. Zobrist is a significantly better player. It's really about who else wants him (i.e. what the final price will be) and how fast he'll drop off. I'd like not to just hand it all to Flores/Herrera/Tejada/Reynolds up the middle and hope for the best. But technically that's a 2016 problem, but there's not guarantee it won't continue to be a 2017, etc problem, and having Zobrist definitely helps mitigate that.

I like and want Frazier but I want to try to fit him somewhere, not move Duda and Wright. Which probably means he's not a great fit for the Mets.

Centerfield wrote: I want to know what this Pedro Party was all about and why we weren't invited. I think we probably were? Hall of Fame induction?

I'm not sure accuracy is on a list of priorities for the Post, but does someone want to explain to them what exactly "one and done" means, and maybe "blockbuster" too?

i'm not sure I can vote for any of these.

Edgy MD wrote: Seems I can't visit a player's baseball-reference page now without peeping some graph representing his Draft Kings profile. Has the time past where it's weird to enjoy baseball without this? without Draft Kings? or without Fantasy in general? Because the second certainly augments some peoples enjoyment of sports, maybe even pushing a majority in football, but certainly not weird if you're not a gambler on the first.

I'd give Span a one year deal right now, but, anything more is going to have to wait. I suspect other teams feel this way too. I think he's really going to have to progress in time/rehab a little bit first, so there are legitimate recovery metrics in place. Of course, maybe you play that risk and gamble with it early when other's are worried. What about something like a one year deal with a second year as a mutual (either/or) option at $9 per?

May 31st (I think that's the right date) is the date the draft pick compensation weight lifts from his shoulders. If he signs after that no one loses a pick.

Welcome. Invite to Major League camp. Switch-hitting 2b/3b light hitting 27 year old minor league guy.

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: Simmons is tops, but hell, if you can't score any runs it doesn't matter how many you prevent. Well, sure it does, accepting for the moment that we're exaggerating on both sides of the equation. The guy is pretty consistently a 3-bWAR man on defense. In fact, in his four seasons, he's put up 2.4 (in 49 games), 5.4 (in 157), 3.9 (146), and 3.5 (147). Not only are those numbers not seen since Rey's heyday, Ord��ez was much more volatile from season to season. You'd need eight years of healthy Rey-O to get four seasons like that, and the Mets never had no eight years of healthy Rey-O. Depending on how much faith you have in baseball-reference's defensive numbers, that's exactly the guy you run out there even if he's given you a zero-win, replacement level bat. And as wanting as his offense has been, he been giving them more than a zero. Well yeah, exaggeration. Actually his bat is like, 18% lower than average and below replacement level. A lot depends on how much stock you make in defensive metrics and the related valuation of those metrics. He's certainly a vacuum, but does is that really worth 3 wins? maybe. It's certainly not break the bank though, imo, and from a Mets standpoint I'd rather the scales be a little more on the offense side given their high K pitchers.

The Unhappy Days and the image of Colon is so perfect, but everything else about that cover is a mess.

Farmer Ted wrote: "Next season is his age 35 season. so three years is 35,36,37. Not horrible" Michael Cuddyer, age 36 and 37 seasons. Jut sayin. two different players. Not really a 'skill' but Zobrist has been healthy.