Ceetar

Wilson Defensive Players of the Year Awards Handed out regardless of league, but most of these guys are National Leaguers Pitcher: Jacob deGrom, New York Mets The most impressive fact I picked up from this is that DeGrom has yet to make an error in his major league career. Anthony DiComo tweeted that the other day so i looked it up. only other qualified pitchers that haven't over last two years: Kluber, Odorizzi, Kennedy, Quintana. deGrom, Niese, and Colon all have 6 double plays started over last two years. Only Teheran and Quintana have more. (7)

I've always liked Zobrist. He's better than Murphy at basically everything except maybe baserunning, which in aggregate makes him much better. Next season is his age 35 season. so three years is 35,36,37. Not horrible. He only played 126 games this year, because he tore some cartilage in his knee sliding into a base in a game in KC. But he came back fine, played well. And other than that he's played a full slate of games every year since 2009. Seems durable. Of course, age catches up with everyone in a hurry, but seems like as good a bet as anyone. I'd be willing to take on a 4th year, preferably option-based, but even so, for his age 38 season if that's what it takes. I think the ability to move him around the field to fill holes is underrated.

Centerfield wrote: I mean, think about this. Tejada and Simmons are nearly identical at the plate. Tejada plays excellent defense. Simmons plays All-World defense. Simmons is a "steal" at 5 years, 53 million. Tejada is a non-tender risk at $2.5 million. This is crazy. Well, Tejada is actually better at the plate. Fangraphs has him at wRC+ of 95 (same as Flores) for 2015. Simmons is 82. League average for SS is 85. Tejada's averagish, maybe a tick above, with the glove. Simmons is tops, but hell, if you can't score any runs it doesn't matter how many you prevent. Seems crazy to me too. fwiw, checkout the inside edge defense numbers for Simmons vs Tejada and Flores. Surprises me how fast Tejada drops off, range wise. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=ss&stats=fld≶=all&qual=0&type=3&season=2015&month=0&season1=2015&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=10847,5519,5827 There were 1359 balls deemed routine, that over 90% of them are turned into outs. Simmons made them into outs roughly 1350 of them. Of all the plays over the entire season, roughly once a month Simmons might miss a routine play. That's of all the weird hops and quick runners.

It'd be awkward when ambles across the field on Opening Day and gets a ring celebrating his current team's demise. I assume he gets cheers in pregame roster announcements though right?

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Yeah, so I guess he was available. Simmons to the Angels for Aybar and 3 kiddos (2 pitchers and a catcher). Those were Anaheim's top 2 pitchers apparently, so our equivalent of that is probably goes Flores + Matz and maybe more. I'm cool skipping that one. yup. mea culpa I guess. But it definitely seems like he wasn't really available to the Mets. So this is probably good for the Mets, at least in 2016. More holes to shoot singles by in the Atlanta infield.

Couldn't vote for anything with those disgusting camo jerseys out of principle, so Oh, Baby! it is.

Vic Black is a free agent now I think. relievers generally return quicker, but remember what happened to Parnell. control often isn't there. Speaking of Parnell, who's also a free agent, I'd give him a Spring and a friendly deal to get right if no one is snapping him up.

I saw Mark Simon write it up as a good fit, I assumed that's where it originated.

metsmarathon wrote: put me down in the "i hope they get denard span" category. i think he's a great fit with the way the team is built, and would form an effective 4-man rotation with grandy, lagares, and conforto. Span's a nice player. Who's recently had a hip surgery? Curious if there are any year-after effects with that one.

I dunno, to me it stems from not thinking the owners have a responsibility to do much of anything. The Wilpons are mostly crap owners, I suspect most owners are, but the #1 thing I want is the Mets playing baseball. That's probably like..70% of what I need from them, and at least 25% of the rest of it is covered now with fun players and a competitive team. Maybe I'm too complacent, but I'm going to enjoy 2016 regardless so I just can't get worked up about demanding they operate a certain way or to a certain budget. I don't mean I _want_ the Mets to have a level 4 offense, just that if that's what they end up with to start, I still think they're a pretty good and competitive team.

Actually my initial reply pointed out what they're actually asking for. i.e., he's not available. There are a lot of players that ARE actually available. Supposedly the Mets and Mariners 'talked' about Juan Lagares. There's at least some value in peeking at the Mariners roster and theorizing trades if that's your bag. But today on the Internet there are going to be thousands upon thousands of words spent on Andrelton Simmons who's not actually being shopped. I mean, pick a random team, pick a nice player on that team and ask yourself "Would they take Harvey for him?" And then we could talk about all those players too.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The initial asking price may turn out to be higher than what Atlanta might eventually accept. this is true of every single player in the majors though.

a 'level 4' offense is actually fine though. Don't play guys that are holes are broken and you'll still score a few runs, which wins games with this pitching. I like the flexibility of being able to adjust via callups and trades midseason with what doesn't work. Their are guys you could spend for, and they'd be good ways to go, but I just don't think it's the only way they have to/should go. Maybe Heyward's demand is crazy ridiculous, and it's not the end of the world if they pivot from that plan in a different direction. I just don't know if that one slam-dunk guy that'll produce a 120+ wRC+ in the middle of the lineup is out there, and fits, with any certainty. We just know so much more about what the team needs in June than in December. Maybe Cuddyer is back to normal, or maybe he's just flat out broken. Maybe it's Wright that's on the DL, or Flores.. That's how you get situations like "Hmm, I wonder if Lagares could play second.."

HahnSolo wrote: Barring an agent from negotiations? Are there ramifications to this? Isn't it the player's right to have representation in those negotiations? If not it should be. F* Boras, but F* the Marlins and their rink-dink front office. yeah, that won't happen. But as I understand it, Samson and Boras don't talk directly, and haven't in years. So part of this article is perhaps them just speaking at this reporter as a middleman.

Supposedly the price is at least deGrom or Harvey so he's not _really_ available and is as worth talking about as like, Tulo last offseason.

Centerfield wrote: My takeaway: FK thinks the Cespedes at-bats are going to Lagares, and to a lesser extent, Cuddyer. The Mayberry and Nieuwenhuis ABs too. And the Ceciliani.

Nymr83 wrote: Centerfield wrote: Boras will come out with a formula demonstrating how those extra innings bolstered his arm. haha yup, cant wait for that argument to the arbitrators Certainly 'nice' comments from Boras. So I have to ask... which of his clients is a free agent that he wants the Mets to sign?

and the Words with Friends tourney.

Zvon wrote: Aren't you blowing through these kinda fast? We got over 100 days to kill before spring training. maybe we could do the NJ tabloids next.

cooby wrote: Have I met you? Not yet, at least not that I'm aware of.

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: I think I'm up to ..8? Poolers met IRL? 9 if we count Diamond Dad? Tailgating legends count double! yeah, but El Segundo Escupidor gave me a beer!

Nymr83 wrote: I would go Ruth-Williams-Bonds, with maybe Mays ahead of Bonds too. Sure, that's fair. It's really hard to compare different eras with different equipment and fields and conditions and medicines objectively. Maybe impossibly. Bonds is up there though.

d'Kong76 wrote: A couple of us (at least) have met him, he does indeed exist lol... I think I'm up to ..8? Poolers met IRL? 9 if we count Diamond Dad? d'Kong76 wrote: They may be fucked up, and the politicians certainly are, but the law is the law. Try telling a cop when you get pulled over doing 80 in a 55 that the law is fucked up and see how that works for ya. The law is often subjective and defined by lawyers, which is why they've been able to exist for..6 years? (Fanduel says it was founded in 2009) My problem is with the reactionary nature of all this. How about some progressive thinking and some progress? How about figuring out how to filter daily fantasy through the already legal gambling setups in New York? (Or perhaps, there are people in the various gambling industries that lobby NY politicians that feel threatened by daily fantasy? hmm...) With all the gambling hotlines and taxes that come with it? How about being consistent with what constitutes gambling and which loopholes are allowed to exist? When they pull me over doing 80 in a 55 (usually 82 in a 65 actually) all they're really looking for is money/quotes anyway. It's not actually about the law. Which is why they often change it to things like 'windshield obstruction' or in New Jersey the rather generic "Unsafe driving" with a higher fine.

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Once people started suddenly deciding it was 'too much' advertising for daily fantasy, you just knew the politicians would jump up at the chance to pander. Enforcing laws and stopping the flow of billions of illegal gambling money is not pandering. I love ya man, but jeez I'd like to wear the glasses you wear for a few days to see what makes you tick sometimes. Those laws are fucked up. And it's not like these politicians were motivated by a law they hadn't known about or a business they were unaware of. It became a hot-button issue and they realized they could profit/promote themselves by addressing it. What makes me tick is personal freedoms, gambling*, drinking, shopping in Sundays. To a lesser extent (because I don't actually do it), pot.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I could care less what you voted for. But having spent your whole life in this metropolitan area, I just don't get what your expectations are from a NYC tabloid covering the local laughing stock baseball team that just got no-hitted by a no-name no-fanfare rookie. You realize this is a voting thread right? and I'm explaining why I voted the way I did? I mean, there's a poll at top and all. I have very little expectations from the NYC tabloids. Absolutely none. I think they add zero value to the city. I was going to say "Just don't incite violence" but I don't even expect that of them.