Ceetar

Edgy MD wrote: Because when you disparage a guy, you should be willing to back that up. I hope when somebody trashes you, he backs his opinion up with accounts of things you actually did and said. I'm fine with people disliking me. I'm fine with them stating so if someone links me in another forum. Free country and what not. It's just chatter, I'm not writing a freaking essay here. Keith Law's statements mean less than nothing to me. I don't need to justify that, it's an opinion.

Edgy MD wrote: It'd be nice if you shared something about what your opinion is based on, seeing as how you disparaged him and all. why? Am I building a case against him or something? I'm not squirreling away evidence or saving tweets or links over the years. This is how I find him to be.

Edgy MD wrote: What ways is he set in? All folks who give their opinions will disagree with others who publish opinions. Does he write stuff like, "John Sickels is wrong because he's ALWAYS wrong, and I wish he'd change his shirt once in a while. The funk off of that guy --- GEEZ!"? All opinions about what will happen in the future are speculative. Neither is my opinion on him fact. Simply my opinion. That's all. And I certainly have no interest in PAYING for his. It's worth nothing to me.

seawolf17 wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Fly to Squinty. http://archives.cranepoolforum.net/6400/f2_t6464.shtml A true CPF classic. I'll always associate Nickeas and Thole with Ellie's obsession with them on Twitter. She's the fangirliest of fangirls. yeah, that too.

Gwreck wrote: This Nickeas deal keeps alive the longest active Mets trade chain: Tim Bogar --> traded to Houston for Luis Lopez Luis Lopez --> traded to Milwaukee for Bill Pulsipher (his second Mets tenure) Bill Pulsipher --> traded to Arizona for Lenny Harris Lenny Harris --> traded to Milwaukee (with others) for Jeromy Burnitz (his second Mets tenure) Jeromy Burnitz --> traded to Los Angeles for Victor Diaz Victor Diaz --> traded to Texas for Mike Nickeas Mike Nickeas --> traded to Toronto today nice, and we've got THREE players branched off there to hopefully continue it for a while.

I think he has a bias, particularly I think he is particularly set in his ways and dismissive of information he doesn't agree with. I think that colors his work. I'm sure it's all fine work, but given that it's nature is speculative anyway, I put little credence into his opinions. (And this was his opinion based on his research, it's not like he wrote a 5 page post on the trade) Same way I feel about Rubin's holier than thou attitude and opinion. Bias and attitude colors it and nothing they do is unique or exclusive that i need to put up for it. So i'll continue to be dismissive of both of them.

Alderson stated that he'd talked to the Reyes camp that weekend and had made clear what the Mets were willing to offer. But when Miami topped it and they hoped they could then get the Mets to drive up their price, Alderson didn't budge. Reyes never reached the point where he wasn't feeling out the market, and the Mets didn't want to arbitrarily bid up the price before he was actually ready to sign. He got a big offer and Alderson decided (or the Wilpons finances did) that it was too much. It's just negotiations. By officially writing down and creating a paper offer, the Mets create a market and a floor for Reyes. By NOT doing it the Reyes camp telling other teams "The Mets will give us 106" carries a little less meaning.

someone tweeted that a deal is in the works with an OF. but that's been the case since the Winter Meetings so who knows.

Gwreck wrote: Yeah, he has no idea whatsoever what he is talking about. no, but his work is full of arrogance and smugness, and that makes me doubt the sincerity of most of his statements.

Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: I think there is a VERY strong possibility there was no Wheeler offered for Reyes, and that Alderson DID ask around. I think he was probably serious about considering keeping him, especially when it looked like he hamstring might drive down the value a bit. It is possible that there was no Wheeler-caliber prospect to be had for Reyes. It is not at all possible that management was serious about keeping Reyes beyond 2012, as so clearly evidenced by their failure to even make an offer. yeah...they didn't scribble the numbers down on paper and say "sign here please" but they discussed numbers.

The Second Spitter wrote: Gwreck wrote: This is the confusing part. Beltran was traded for a key prospect; Reyes was allowed to walk, Dickey traded for a key prospect(s). Jason Bay was released. These are the steps a team makes when trying a rebuild. Yes, Wright figures to remain productive for several years of his contract beyond the first one but a true rebuild would have dictated trading him either 1. Prior to the 2012 season or 2. Prior to signing the extension. *Yet, at least. I suppose the best possible hope is that we haven't conceded 2014 yet. This post highlights the idiocy of not trading Reyes, who would have brought back at least a prospect at the same level as Wheeler, if not better. Things would have looked much rosier for 2013. I think there is a VERY strong possibility there was no Wheeler offered for Reyes, and that Alderson DID ask around. I think he was probably serious about considering keeping him, especially when it looked like he hamstring might drive down the value a bit. But Alderson, budget or not, seems to set a price and refuse to overpay no matter what. Hope that changes when said player might be an "over the top" player for the team though.

He did suffer a concussion, miss three weeks, and then catch the no-hitter. Wish him well, hopefully he gets back his OBP and swing rates that went poof afterward.

Nymr83 wrote: Keith Law also praised the Mets' haul here. instantly makes me question it.

physicals passed. We'll find out the other two prospects included when they get called up.

Edgy MD wrote: A true rebuild would have meant selling the ballpark and starting over there, also. I have no problem with a rebuild that includes David Wright. I don't think that undermines any philosophical commitment. Nah, the ballpark's part of the solution, not the problem. Conceptually, fine. We're broke, etc. How long does rebuilding take though? And when can we reasonably expect the offseason moves Alderson makes are more made for the immediate than the future? I guess Wright is the 'one toy' we get to keep while we're rebuilding.

Vic Sage wrote: The Mets will probably sign a couple of those journeyman type minor league contract rehabilitation projects, that strategy hasn't worked out too badly for them in recent years. yeah, I hope that's a factor of some sort of evaluation and just dumb luck. Or maybe it's just injury guys tend to do okay until they break and we've gone after more of those and less of the Tim Reddings. Although they had some decent success pre Sandy too..Dickey, Takahashi. Figueroa had his moments.

Fman99 wrote: I have to believe that the willingness to let Dickey go is directly tied to the organization's belief that Wheeler is going to be ready, come April, to start the season in the rotation. He had good numbers (albeit a small sample size) in AAA last summer. no way. for one, the same 'years of control' argument plays in that we're discussing with d'Arnaud. for two, if they were going to be willing to do that, I don't think a September call up last season would've been so out of the question. Santana will be the Opening Day starter. There doesn't seem to be much reason to expect him to not be healthy for it. Niese. Gee doesn't seem to have any setbacks, medically, that are going to block him from pitching as is. Harvey will pitch and probably won't have any real innings limits that will hinder him beyond him spending the first half pitching nothing but complete games. So that's the front four. Meija was the first name floated for 5th starter, but that's just likely a name thrown out there, given that it's December.The Mets will probably sign a couple of those journeyman type minor league contract rehabilitation projects, plus have McHugh with Wheeler lurking to get a call up after he reaffirms his readiness and gets a couple of AAA starts in.

clearly the offseason is not over yet, so we'll see, but I'm interested to see how the outfield shakes out..I mean, if they're not going to do anything, why release Bay that early, unless it was solely for the ability to defer the money from this year, and if they're not going to spend said money, are they really that broke? (and by really that broke I mean do they need to salvage every last penny the Mets make on various agreements to pay off loans on things like Citi Field?)

Edgy MD wrote: Is that ROO-bin, or Roo-BEE? "LAHB-E"

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: By trading Dickey to the Toronto Blue Jays, pending the negotiation of a contract extension, the Mets essentially told their fans that they do not expect to contend for the next three years. These numbers always seem so arbitrary. Three? We really just mailed in a concession speech for three years? I think because that as the rumored length of his contract+extension, so clearly the Mets don't see him as part of "The next contending team" I think there's nothing clear at all about that, and that's some ridiculously simplistic logic. I didn't say it wasn't simplistic, just that it probably wasn't arbitrary.

Edgy MD wrote: I guess that depends on the situation on the ground at the time, as they say. I'm just started to get nervous that the situation on the ground is never going to be good enough to commit to. admittedly, I'm probably getting overly worked up over Alderson (or Wilpon) statements even though I know you can't take anything they say as even remotely resembling truth. But they seemed to suggest a 100+ million payroll this year, mentioned last year that they were in a "period of ascendancy" but from this view point it looks like we're going into a third year of rebuilding. Foundation is looking solid, but eventually you have to put something on top of it. metsmarathon wrote: if the mets are truly in as dire a financial strait as they appear frequently to be, then leveraging expensive aging talent for inexpensive prospective talent is hte only way to build a winning franchise, until the expenses work themselves out. keeping expensive aging talent for meaningless immediate marginal gains does not make for a marketable team. or a particularly winful team, either. since the financials appear to be shit, this is the way it must be. the mets must follow the example of the tampa rays. and in this trade, they have done so. if it works, perhaps sooner rather than later, the coffers will refill themselves and the mets can be players with money again. the solace to be found is that our current area of greatest need, the outfield, is probably hte area wherein it is easiest to find some spare part to fill in adequately for a time. i mean, hell, we went to the world series with an outfield of benny agbayani, jay payton, and derek bell. I agree with all this and have said as much. Doesn't make it any less sad or disappointing. And I don't get excited for AAA Mets, I get excited for MLB Mets, so I find the trade is making me sad for missing Dickey and isn't yet providing me anything. It's a very in the moment, emotional response, that's all.

Edgy MD wrote: By trading Dickey to the Toronto Blue Jays, pending the negotiation of a contract extension, the Mets essentially told their fans that they do not expect to contend for the next three years. These numbers always seem so arbitrary. Three? We really just mailed in a concession speech for three years? I think because that as the rumored length of his contract+extension, so clearly the Mets don't see him as part of "The next contending team" of course, any message to the fans ultimately happens with the team that goes north in April. It's not like Alderson is now going to take the rest of the offseason vacation.

Swan Swan H wrote: Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar, you don't see the Mets adding talented players who could help them for years to come? I'm down on the deal, but I think it's obvious what the strategy is. I don't know that it's..obvious. It's the one that makes the most sense..surely.. but take the outfield thread..what's the plan for that? I'm not convinced they will. Say we're a year in the future and the D'backs are dangling Upton. Do the Mets bite? financially? So you are opposed to the one that makes the most sense. I always thought so. Just because it makes the most sense doesn't mean it's the one that works out the best. hey, you could've argued, as many did, that the Pagan trade made the most sense. Didn't work out that way.

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar, you don't see the Mets adding talented players who could help them for years to come? I'm down on the deal, but I think it's obvious what the strategy is. I don't know that it's..obvious. It's the one that makes the most sense..surely.. but take the outfield thread..what's the plan for that? I'm not convinced they will. Say we're a year in the future and the D'backs are dangling Upton. Do the Mets bite? financially?

Swan Swan H wrote: Niese is signed through 2018. Murphy and Parnell are arbitration-eligible through 2015, Davis, Gee and Tejada through 2016. Totally blanked on Niese, but yeah. one pitcher and one hitter. Those others merely haven't had the chance to get away yet and are cheap and under control. And they won't get you anything in return. (Gotta play someone there right?) Who's to say if Davis has a big year as a left-handed power first baseman they don't leverage him for something else since power-hitting first baseman are generally not that hard to replace? Especially if 2014 doesn't look like 'the year'? Didn't Ryan Howard make 10 million in his first year of arbitration? Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: And that doesn't change that this process is NOT marketable or exciting for 2013 as currently constituted. I don't see why I should care a whole lot how "marketable" the Mets are. *I'm anticipating the response that there's no guarantee that Travis will become a star. It's silly that I have to even type this paragraph; of course that statement is true, but there's certainly no guarantee that standing pat would end up being a good idea either. Because, as a fan, the entertainment value of the team is pretty much the only thing. And that means winning. And the longer you wait to win, the longer it takes for the fans to come back, and what happens if it gets pushed back due to bad luck or simply doesn't happen? Improvement in 2013 raises interest in 2014 (and hence ticket sales and revenue, which makes investing in the roster easier). Of course d'Arnaud is no guarantee. He's a gamble. they all are. Maybe he's less of a gamble than some, but that's not the point. Everyone is a gamble, Dickey included, but you have three years of recent history and data that suggest Dickey is good, and none that Travis is besides projections and not always translatable minor league stats. The gamble here is that sacrificing the more sure thing now for the more sure thing later is that all the other things that you're also gambling on need to work out too. You could have 10 dice that roll a 6 80% of the time and still have them all roll 1s. And then where are we? Square one? That sustainable winner isn't a sure thing just via good farm system stocking, nor is it even a sure thing if you add in a financial investment we're not sure we're getting down the line. Simply put, I'd rather gamble on Dickey than d'Arnaud. I'd rather the Mets look to utilize other methods to continue to improve down the line and build a sustainable winner. it's not mandatory that it has to include trading Dickey...but I get that the current situation of the Mets, at least as it seems from the outside, seems to dictate that it does. They can't afford NOT to leverage this asset. (And I assume they didn't leverage Reyes because they weren't offered anything really worthwhile) But that desperation doesn't leave me excited about the future, it makes me wary that they'll ever be able to build that winner if other cracks, like Wheeler Pelfing, turn up. And just because I understand the process and hinted at goals, doesn't mean I like it. I wish it wasn't that way and I'm certainly fine with having rooted for it to work WITH Dickey.