Ceetar

no, the 'qualifying offer' is just a stand-in for 'good faith offer to keep player' It's the same mechanism as offering him 7 years, 150 million, which would also be a qualifying offer if it came within those first five days. You have to do that in the first 5 days of free agency (the team's exclusive negotiating window) in order to be eligible for compensation should that player sign elsewhere, but because there will never be compensation for Cespedes, there's no reason for them to offer the token ~15ish/1year deal. (edit to say that I'm not actually sure you can make a bigger qualifying offer. Sounds like it's just a boolean "yes, we'd take him" type deal)

G-Fafif wrote: 2006. cruised and costed in an easy Dodgers series. Pitched great in the Beltran opener. Mostly kept them in the game 5 thanks to an early Willie hook. 4+, gave up 2 in 4th, single, double in 5th followed by an IBB and a hook. That's what makes it so galling. He'd really started washing some of that Braves taint off and boom.

I object to Granderson leadoff, as I have all year. Leadoff home runs feel like they're wasting guys on base. Tejada, the prime candidate to leadoff given high OBP low SLG, isn't playing, but Murphy and Wright both are, right now, candidates. I realize it's nit-picking and a marginal run-scoring adjustment isn't really a big deal to the Mets offense right now, but hey, I'd rather nit-pick lineups than murky quotes about what doctors have said about ligaments.

dgwphotography wrote: Um - this is good news: http://nypost.com/2015/09/08/mets-remove-a-huge-obstacle-in-re-signing-yoenis-cespedes/ Seeing the potential mutual benefit, the Mets and Cespedes� representatives changed the clause in his contract that would have given the Mets only five days after the World Series ended to sign him long term or not be able to do so again until May 15, The Post has learned. Thus, rather than be under a short-term constraint to decide whether to sign Cespedes as a free agent, the Mets can let the process play out and be like any of the other 29 clubs that can negotiate and sign him at any point this offseason. Pretty much makes sense. All Sandy has to do is say 'Well, you know, we'd like you but we're not going to make you an over the top offer in the first few days just to keep you'. And if they believe that, there's really no downside to agreeing to continue to talk to the Mets after 5 days are up. I wonder if numbers were floated. "We believe you're worth this, and small sample size being what it is, nothing that happens here on out will alter it much" Perhaps the 'hand shake' agreement is that Cespedes gets to talk to the other clubs and the Mets won't then pull that initial offer away if no one beats it?

the worst would be for them to hit that series 3up. So close yet technically still disastrous.

d'Kong76 wrote: Renting this shiny new toy with no expectation of keeping it is kinda frustrating to me. I really don't see how they can't make some effort to keep him... publicly or privately. Think of it like renting a Ferrari on vacation.

Ashie62 wrote: Harvey will be pulled at the first sign of trouble. no he won't, he's one of their best pitchers and you trust him more than most, if not all, the relievers.

Edgy MD wrote: If he stays this good through the post-season, then few of use will have reason to quibble over whether he's really this good. Well, the last person to slug what he's slugging in a full season was Pujols in 2006, and just barely. Then a few guys in the early 2000s, a different offensive era. Only McGwire did in '98. From an objective and statistical standpoint, it seems pretty unwise to me to pay him for something you can't really expect him to do again, particularly over a long haul, particularly when you have to pay him based on what he _thinks_ he'll get in free agency. But he hits the ball freaking hard and is suddenly in a deep lineup and is in a pennant race and certainly is a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

soupcan wrote: At this point - and I'll assume he just keeps it going - how do you not sign him? Meanwhile his price is going up everyday. I think that's just it. Price is going up and he's not young and he's not this good. It's a shame they can't reap any of the benefits* from this when he signs elsewhere for way too much money and years for an older guy that doesn't walk, but I'd probably bank on a .270/.320/.500 line from him next year as his high point and while that's good, it's not really break the bank numbers. *Obviously they'll reap the benefits of a long run this season.

The lawyer and amateur doctor storyline stuff is not particularly interesting to me. Harvey's a good pitcher. The Nats can be beaten. beat them. Put the division back squarely in "Nats don't control their own destiny" territory again, which happens with a win in either of these games.

Phillies number for elimination is 2! Mets could start eliminating teams starting tomorrow!

David Wright is going to hit three home runs today.

rough start.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm almost positive he's going to be an NRI for the Mets come March. I could see that. The Mets like to bring in a couple of guys like that that give the media easy "hometown hero!" columns for Spring Training. See: Anthony Seratelli.

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Niese, Lagares, they considered/started the process with Duda. They're already doing that? Not to be rude, but defending the Wilpons just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. I'm not defending them, but the narrative is tired. If the Mets spend 100 it's why don't they spend 120? if they spend 120 it's why don't they spend 140? You said they need to extend players because it's what teams in big markets do, well, they're doing that. Why wouldn't it continue? Regardless of how far the Mets go, this is going to come up next with Cespedes because he's playing well above his talent level for the Mets and his talent level and age isn't really the kind of player you need to spend $60+ on. It's the perfect storm of a good baseball move to pass on him that could be pointed to as blaming the finances.

d'Kong76 wrote: I know this is the Harvey thread, but I mean locking up some core talent in general by opening up the dusty checkbook. $uccess should put them back in the big market category. If not, rinse repeat what I said above. Niese, Lagares, they considered/started the process with Duda. They're already doing that?

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's not an aside, it's practically worthless. Of course the Mets would have the money. Should they happen to, years in the future, decide not to offer Harvey or another player an extension it's likely due to non-financial reasons. Let's hope so, but cheap is cheap and Boras doesn't accept coupons. I'd have to look. Have NO Boras clients signed pre-FA extensions? The whole point of extensions is trading the security of a contract for a few less bucks overall. Especially for pitchers. By waiting out say two years you're basically gambling that you won't get hurt against what, 10% more money? That Boras generally seems dismissive of this risk is detrimental to his clients and it's really no surprise that you see a lot of guys cut ties with him and at least one GM that he hasn't even spoken to directly in 10 years.

d'Kong76 wrote: Just an aside... if the Mets make the playoffs the next two years and have some success or even better and they can't afford to start locking up a few of their key players for big money they shouldn't be allowed (and don't deserve) to own a team in New York. That's not an aside, it's practically worthless. Of course the Mets would have the money. Should they happen to, years in the future, decide not to offer Harvey or another player an extension it's likely due to non-financial reasons.

HahnSolo wrote: Ceetar wrote: no it's not, Boras is a blowhard. Which is exactly why I worry this is going to get very public and very ugly. I'm in agreement that the Mets will stick to their plan (whatever it is), that doesn't mean Boras won't fan the flames and the media won't eat it up and spit it out. Well sure, Heyman's basically a Boras spokesperson anyway and the media loves this stuff. But the Mets are awesome and winning trumps it all. It's only when no one wants to talk about the games that setting shit on fire dominates the discussion.

no it's not, Boras is a blowhard. Mets will do what they were planning to do the whole time, which appears to be skip another start and let him pitch in the playoffs.

Zvon wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: We'll get our shot at them too And they better roll over for us too. I thought there'd be a game worth watching tonight. didn't we just win 6/7 from the Phillies? Let's see what the Braves do the rest of this series.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I predict that the Mets will go into Washington with a 6-game lead. (Mets will win two in Miami, Nationals will win three of four from Atlanta.) If that in fact happens, the Nationals can take two of three from the Mets without things getting at all scary in the standings. I figure 7 and that the Nationals split.

Centerfield wrote: Wait, so they could add him and he would be eligible for the post-season? pretty sure that's the rule. so like, when they cut O'flahtery..

They absolutely use player projection systems so the varied ranking of teams is at least partially on what THEY think are the best teams, not necessarily what the record is.