Ceetar

metsmarathon wrote: they have ichiro and (a practically free) soriano in addition to the undervalued brett gardner. bringing back granderson doesn't improve the team and weaken the sawx in one fell swoop. adding ellsbury does. Yeah, but Granderson is the best OF of those, so really they're weaker. Maybe the Sox are hurt by losing Ellsbury, or maybe it's something they already planned for. Maybe the Yankees are just banking on saving A-Rod's $20+ million. Maybe they're confident they can resign Cano, see that as the harder to lock down position, and didn't want to just re-sign everyone.

That's both an obtuse, cruel, and awesome hint btw.

I'm not convinced he can play second base. or LF for that matter. he's a bench guy.

I'm not necessarily petrified of Granderson's age 36th season if we did give him that 4th year.

They're out of guesses it feels like. Give them progressively easier hints.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Not to put too fine a point on it but I think Beltran actually wrote that "We are never ever getting back together" song and sold it to Miley Cyrus or whoever sings it. There's just no way he comes back and I think very little chance we even ask about it. He just won't. I guess Grandy at 3 is as good as we can do here. Of course someone will give him 5 probably. Beltran's been on record saying he'd come back to the Mets though. The older player doesn't really fit with the Mets this/next year, but I'd love to see him here.

metsmarathon wrote: yabbut, knowing the answers, you have to admit that the hints i'm throwing out there are pretty good, right? oh, yeah. They're good hints. The answer is right there, staring. Clearly we just don't know the Mets as well as we think we do.

Ashie62 wrote: The twitterverse in pitching Nelson Cruz to the MFS's Choo to the Tigers..an MYF offer to Omar Infante and Beltran to several.. The board is moving..Anybody seen Mets attached to any FA?? Curtis Granderson. Chris Young.

I just looked it up. I was, and they are, never going to get it. (provided I did my math right, but still)

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: our condition being "having one already" or "not likely to score enough runs to close games"? More the former than the latter. But there's also the concept of having a limited budget with other holes to fill. And then there's the whole thing about the erratic nature of closers, the relatively short span of greatness even the good ones tend to have, the marginal difference between the edge a supposedly "great" one will give you as compared to just a decent one and the difficulty in predicting which will be which, and so on. As I talked about towards the end of the year-long Adventures in Closerland thread, a number of what turned out to be the top closers in 2013 didn't even start out the year with that job in the same way that some of the ones who started there didn't finish. And that a team even keeping the same closer for more than a year or two at a time is more the exception than the rule. Think it was at Beyond the Box Score, but relievers who weren't "proven closers" out-closed their proven brethren by a hefty margin last year. Of course, that just means they've all become proven, and likely this year will continue to perform well this year as proven closers.

Frayed Knot wrote: seawolf17 wrote: I'm just saying that it wouldn't kill Joe Nathan to sign with the Mets, JUST ONCE. Sure, except that if I had to recommend to Sandy where NOT to spend major money this off-season it would be in the closer's spot. Buying closers on the open market is a questionable strategy in most cases (although the Tigers may be in that spot) and especially so in our condition right now. our condition being "having one already" or "not likely to score enough runs to close games"?

seawolf17 wrote: That's 3/$48+, plus a draft pick. $16M+ for a 39-year-old in 2016. Unless you're pretty confident that the NL will have the DH by then... only a second rounder for the Mets though.

From what I can see (especially if A-Rod misses games) the Yankees aren't making the playoffs with or without Cano the way the team is shaping up. It'll be interesting to see if they have the guts to move on from Cano. Of course, it takes less guts with the DH because you can nurse him through some of the later years.

Atchison and Quintanilla.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: MFYs reportedly have him 7/160. That's not unbeatable Don't really want to go 8, but 7/180? sure. Wonder if there is a reluctance to pay him/anyone more than Wright.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Getting back on topic, second base is where it can all happen. I'd love to see the Mets sneak over the MFYs for Cano, then fill out the roster with whatever SS, P or SS help we could get by trading Muffy and/or Young Jr. I know it's not likely, but it's one possible way to transform. Cano's a great player. I don't even know what would be 'reasonable' for him anymore the way the market is going. (his 10/300 "demand" or whatever isn't) In terms of Yankee poaching, I think I'd rather Granderson, but I'd certainly be happy with Cano. With another great hitter like that, I think I'm pretty fine with our offense even if the only other upgrades are bringing in veteran types to round out platoon advantages and what not in the outfield.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Tommy Hanson sounds like the bad boy in high school that the girl you have a crush on is attracted to. He's actually the first cousin of the band.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/non-tender-candidates.html

Edgy MD wrote: If you missed Tejada playing himself out of a job, well, he played himself out of a job. How many Tejada starts were the difference between him being called up on September 1 and being called up when he did? Tejada should've been called up before 9/1. There's every chance Tejada is playing on the Mets this year, while the chances that Quintanilla is extremely slim. There were a half dozen, at least, reasons to give Tejada those 100 PA.

Frayed Knot wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: The scariest number there is that Omar Quintanilla had 359 plate appearances for the Mets in 2013. And that, for the most part, he got them because the other options were worse. he got them because the Mets wanted an extra year of control for Ruben Tejada, so much so that he considered/is considering filing a grievance. I mean, if Murphy is here it's his. I don't think I see anything crazy that involves him switching positions. And Murphy seems like the type of guy that's decent but not quite good enough to really net much in a trade so that it's better to keep him.

Frayed Knot wrote: Y'know, Met fans who cry when the Yanx get one of our players and then cry when one of theirs come here--as if both somehow demean us while raising them--can go suck on it. Just as making moves simply for its pr value (something that's been discussed here before) is stupid, so is NOT making a useful move for fear of perceived bad pr reasons (within reason of course). As I think I made clear, Hughes might be a guy for back of the rotation filler in the spot where the likes of Matsuzaka or Harang might be considered - remember that we're not only missing Harvey for 2014 but Hefner as well. If it turns out that he's too expensive then you move on to someone else, but to declare him that now is getting ahead of things. In the meantime, nobody is suggesting that moving him to Queens will suddenly make him a front of the rotation stud, only that it'll likely make him better and that, at age 27, it's not like his career arc is already set in stone and only destined to go downhill from here. I'm not declaring him too expensive, but I wouldn't pay him more than a bit, even knowing the market is insane this year. Of course, Arroyo (who's better) is seemingly seeking 3 years so at least if you're going to bite that bullet for a multi-year guy a younger one makes sense, but Phil Hughes? for one, he dreams of having years like Mike Pelfrey or Bronson Arroyo, even if you use FIP or xFIP or fWAR. There are better options. I only bring up Pelfrey because they're similar ages and similar "HE SHOULD BE BETTER" first round pick nonsense around them. If Hughes was on another team, it'd be "Hey, Hughes is available. He kinda sucks though." but since many of the people writing about the Mets have seen him first hand, regularly, or covered him, it's easy to write about him and have an opinion. It's also easy to make up some "Fits in New York" crap too.

I despise the Phil Hughes to the Mets (ooh, I should write a whole post on this. Naah, maybe just a slideshow) story on so many different levels. It feels like picking up Yankee-trash and seems to be most proposed by the woe-is-me Mets fan that really wish they were Yankees fans. In a lot of ways it feels like getting Pelfrey back. Which is fine really, if that's the type of filler pitcher you want. I've got no problem picking up a league-averagish pitcher instead of a crusty veteran league-averagish pitcher. But seems like Hughes wants more money than he's worth. He's flawed, and a lot of people seem to think "Oh, just send him to Citi" like that'll suddenly make him good. It might hide some of his flaws. Certainly he's a fly-ball pitcher and a big park with a possibly very good OF defense would help a lot. But It's not going to unlock some secret magic that's going to make him realize his first round draft pick potential. Maybe most importantly, he's just not very good.

no 'era' continue until 3/31, fwiw.

Woah, Jerry Manuel might have been right about something?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I kinda feel about Chris Young the way I did about Xavier Nady and also, Ryan Church. You know, a newly arriving, young-ish vet, corner outfielder who might be good. Or, might not. It's impossible to tell. Chris Young is way better than those guys (although I still believe Church would've turned in some good years sans-concussion) Don't get me wrong -- just comparing my feeeeeelings on Young to those on Nady and Church. I don't even remember acquiring Nady myself. Just all of a sudden he was playing and it was like "Hey, he's doing pretty good ain't he? oh wait now he's a Pirate"