Ceetar

yes, but it has little bearing to the real world, in which money exists. So when you try to equate this concept to actual $ worth to a team, it gets a little more tricky. WAR itself is abstract. A 4 win player does not actually make the team 4 games better in the win column than a 0 win player. There's all those lucky bounces and ball in play randomness and key moments thrown in there. We're digressed into arguing valuation which is sort of beyond what I meant. Originally all I was trying to say is that I think the Marlins* will be happy they have Reyes in 2017, and won't be looking to upgrade at SS for production reasons. To me, that means it's not a 'bad deal'. *barring trade/name change of course

Edgy DC wrote: I don't think we're adequately wrapping our head around the concept of "replacement player," but the idea is that they do, more or less, grow on trees. Not really. Plenty of replacement players end up with serious negative value. I wonder if it's easier or harder to find a replacement SS. Are there enough defensive guys out there that can't hit that mitigate the dropoff, or is 1B better due to the limited defensive value the position has meaning the actual value the player needs to add to be replacement is lower?

metsmarathon wrote: is hte jason bay contract suddenly a good one? No, since Jason Bay didn't contribute and we have at least some inkling of an idea that it cost us Reyes. (which would affect next, and the season after..etc) The problem is that winning the World Series factors in a lot of luck and randomness too. The odds are probably lower with Bay than they would be with him, allocating that money to Reyes, or anyone else really. but there's a difference between no use (or close enough) and under-performing it's total price. Replacement players don't grow on trees. And often when you're forced to use a replacement player (say Freddy Galvis?) for more than a handful of starts here and there you get much less than replacement level. There's a lot of 'hidden' value in simply putting up positive numbers. Bay gave them 1.3 WAR in 2010. If he'd stayed on the field the entire season, that'd be over 2. It's not much, but it's a positive impact and presumably would've driven in some runs with power that was otherwise lacking. Particularly because inthe Mets case that "replacement player" isn't 0, but the sub-0 that Frank Catalanotto, Gary Matthews, F-Mart, Nick Evans, Chris Carter, Jesus Feliciano that got playing time in his wake. Those are the replacement players the Mets chose, and they were bad. That year the Mets viewed Bay as probably the best way to add value, at a position they had a negative in. It wasn't a money question. They needed more wins. The extra wins they felt they'd get from Bay far exceeded what they felt they'd get from guessing at a lesser player in LF and spending a marginal upgrade elsewhere if they could find it. What I'm trying to say is that the Mets were trying to field the 8 guys that would give them the most wins, money be damned. And what they, and I, care about is getting the most wins. Not whether each players value balances nicely with the amount they're being paid.

Gee 3.5 Wright 2.0 Hairston 2.0 Valdespin 0.5 Rottino 0.5 Nickeas 0.5 Parnell 0.5

fine. How about Melvin Mora.

Are guys disqualified if they're Big-Time at other positions. Otherwise I think the answer is Wright.

I blame defense WAR a bit for that.

Edgy DC wrote: You may wonder who is coming out ahead so far. It's a little bit complicated, because the deal is heavily backloaded, suggesting Reyes wants to run up an early lead if he's going to win this one for you, Ceetar. According to Fangraphs, Reyes has so far checked in with $6.4 million in production. This year he's scheduled to make $10,000,000. Prorate to 68 games and he's been paid $4,197, 531. That's the sound of Reyes and Ceetar ahead by $2,202,469. can we track this for 6 months? we can get a whole crazy spreadsheet and graph going!

metsmarathon wrote: in 2011, teh world champion st louis cardinals paid jake westbrook $8M for essentially replacement-level performance over the course of 180+ innings. was that a bad contract? did they overpay him? well, assume they cut Westbrook and called up the next guy from AAA and he gave them 1 win less. Not even factoring in the 8 figure windfall the Cardinals got by making the playoffs and having all those home games as a result of that 1 extra win. But you can't separate out individual player, even if WAR was perfect, which it's not. It's still always a team game with the goal being to make the playoffs. Everyone* would rather have a 95 win team that spends 150 million to get to the playoffs than an 85 win team that misses it but only spends 75. Sure, they got a lot more bang for their buck, but that's not the point. So if the team with Reyes makes the playoffs, wins a World Series, competes, does all those things you want in a ballclub, then it's worth it. If they fall short because the money they gave to Reyes kept them from spending it on other areas that would've put them over the top, then it's a disappointment, even if he's a 9 WAR player. (This is probably the A-Rod in Texas argument) Same if there's an available upgrade to Reyes that they're prevented from pursuing. Sure, you probably can get more wins by spreading the 17 million around than by investing it in one player. But sometimes you don't. maximizing value at a position is important too, even if you have to overpay for it. There are only 8 positions. If you skimp on one position by signing a lesser player because he's cheaper, you need to reassign those wins elsewhere. In essence, you have to overpay some guys to get that high production, because a team of pretty good players with good contracts usually doesn't excel unless everything works out. Due to plummeting revenue and a couple of overpay contracts already in Santana, Bay and Wright, the Mets felt they couldn't afford to take that big risk/big reward move. the Marlins could. I disagree, but I also understand. *speaking from a purely baseball/competitive standpoint. Obviously most owners would rather do whatever is profitable.

Gwreck wrote: metsmarathon wrote: in hindsight, the pr disaster angle seems somewhat overplayed, no...? No doubt, although the team winning has a way of ameliorating those things. Mets don't do well, it's a big problem. Mets win, it's "Jose who?" and will be the same for Wright. or anyone else.

if I'm doing the Math right it's about 900 a game or so so far. For a 'fair' comparison they need about 4 more home games which will clear the Yankees series in both years. I think they're down about 32000 through tonight so they'd need to sell about 60k in that Phillies game on Monday to tie. or 140,000 through the series. Not that it really matters. They'll trail in attendance from last year through to late August probably.

Edgy DC wrote: Without a doubt! (What's with the exclamation points?!) shift-1.

seawolf17 wrote: I distinctly remember the Lone Ranger at games, and I like Cowbellman, in whatever configuration his name exists. I also remember a guy who I'm assuming was Sign Man II; he was out in left field on Fan Appreciation Day 1985, when my friend Lou's dad brought a gaggle of us nine-year-olds to the game for Lou's birthday. I distinctly remember said group of nine-year-olds happily chanting along "BULL -- SHIT" to one of the signs. he still, at least I think it's the same guy, shows up occasionally. He was always in teh corner spot of the Loge, and is now often in the corner Pepsi Porch spot.

Not watching SNY may make Yankee bobbleheads commit suicide. (Wait, that seems like it's motivating me not to watch..) No funny one liners, but I like the Acura commercial with the 'equal parts work and play' bit.

Edgy DC wrote: metsguyinmichigan wrote: Sometimes I wonder if letting our starters go nine innings no matter what would be better than inviting the bullpen into a game. Stop wondering! I dunno, Gee seemed clearly gassed. now Parnell for two innings?

I prefer the lego sweeper personally.

Edgy DC wrote: The question on the table is this contract and whether he'd earn this amount of money. Well, I think the team will think he's worth it. Will he fangraphs $17 million? That's a little less certain and I'm not in love with the way they calculate value. But sure. I'd wager that he will. Add it to the wagers thread..although keeping that one around and active for 6 years might be tricky.

I could go into a long discussion on how dollar 'values' apply to actual baseball, but it's 4:55. Basically, I care about total value/WAR not $/per. If the Mets had paid say $50 million for a quality closer in 2007, that'd be a gross overpay but it probably would've gotten them into the playoffs.

Unofficial Cheerleaders, Ranked Sign ManCowbell ManConeheadsLady Who Twirled Her ArmsSign Man IILone Ranger of Shea Stadium That works for me. Do we rank fringe cheerleaders that may or may not have staying power or as long a history, like Darren of the 7 Line or Pin Man or that dog that with the pipe?

No recollection of said Lone Ranger. hmm, I don't think I've noticed Cow Bell Man in a while.

metirish wrote: I have a vague memory of Peterson saying that Kazmir's mechanics were an elbow injury waiting to happen..........this may have been said a few years later though. I have always felt bad for Peterson in that whole saga, I thought he was a good pitching coach and seemed like a good guy..... yeah, that's the thing I was remembering, somewhere. It wouldn't be out of line with Peterson to think/say that privately though either, being a guy that was all about studying mechanics and risky deliveries. I was ready for Peterson to go, but I think we underappreciated him, particularly (And this could certainly be unrelated too) the way he seemed to get the most out of John Maine and Oliver Perez. I suspect mechanics had stuff to do with that too. I wonder if anyone's asked Peterson about Maine since, although it's not like he's studying Maine day in and day out to truly comment.

TransMonk wrote: If that's the question we are going to be asking, then forget Reyes...they should have re-signed Beltran last winter. I'll admit I was a proponent of that. He was probably outside their price range as well. TransMonk wrote: Edgy DC wrote: FanGraphs puts a dollar value on every player's production, according to the market. If he exceeds his salary in that dollar amount, Ceetar wins. I'm cool with that if Ceetar is. Case of beer...loser's choice? I made a bet with my brother last Xmas that the Mets would win more games than the Marlins over the term of Jose's deal. I'm currently ahead on that one. Not quite what I meant. I don't know that Reyes fangraph perceived value exceeds his contract in his 6th (2017 right?) year. I was more going along the lines of being a contributing player and not a liability or a 2010 Castillo type player. Not a lynchpin or dynamic leadoff hitter, but a helpful player who the Marlins* don't feel like they need an upgrade on. Top third SS in the NL type.

and apparently Zambrano was actually hurt the entire time right? In the end Peterson was right about Kazmir's long term viability, but he did get some good years in and it would've been nice to have him in '06-'08. It's funny, because that was the first year the Mets had a stats guy, so you'd think they wouldn't have been as high on Zambrano who was a low-K high-BB guy. They seemed to like the win % on a bad team instead. He was an innings type guy, but those aren't the guys that put you over the top in pennant races.

Centerfield wrote: If Miami came and offered him back to you now (at full salary), would you take him? Did Sandy make the right call? Presuming it doesn't affect alternative payroll concerns? In a heartbeat. I think the contract was roughly just right (and even more so for the homegrown legendary Met aspect) and I'd still wager he'll be valuable through all 6 years of it. Did you know his OBP is over .350 over his last 7 seasons? yeah. It's also roughly 4 seasons too early to tell if Sandy "made the right call".

bmfc1 wrote: �From a real veteran staff on the other side, knowing how this thing works and how it�s worked for many, many years, you can go back to spitball pitchers to greaseball pitchers to whatever kind of pitchers to scuffball pitchers, this is just how the game has been played for 100 years, more than that,� he said. �So to single out Joel Peralta tonight, that�s my concern.� http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/post/former-nationals-joel-peralta-ejected-from-rays-nationals-game-before-throwing-a-pitch-for-foreign-substance-on-glove/2012/06/19/gJQArpM8oV_blog.html So is he saying that there is "a code" that allows the use of illegal substances? it's why respected icons like Jeter and Rivera never get implicated. I think he was implying "dude, save it for a division rival"?