Master Index of Archived Threads


Sherman's notes

Frayed Knot Jan 05 2010 08:52 PM

Joel Sherman (taking time off from a vacation or so he claims) attends the press conference for Bay and adds the following observations 1. The Mets were pleasantly surprised early in the offseason at how open Jason Bay was to playing for them. That early read motivated the team to build their offseason strategy around him. Had they gotten a bad vibe early on Bay, the Mets would have recalibrated and made a very strong push for John Lackey. ** Sure doesn't jibe with the supposed "Beruit" comment 2. There has been a lot of buzz in the industry that Omar Minaya favored Matt Holliday much more than Bay, but because of the finances was pushed by ownership to focus on the less-expensive Bay. Minaya insisted that was not true; that he likes both players a great deal. In fact, Minaya said he saw the value of the players as similar, and if they were that close it would be foolish not to take the finances into account. The likelihood is that Holliday will receive a contract for $40 million or more guaranteed than the $66 million assured to Bay. ** judging by the size of the deal Holliday is reported to be getting from St Louie, he probably made the right call 3. Multiple Mets officials said they know the metrics show the opposite, but their scouts contend Bay is a better defender than Holliday. Not only does that dispute statistical findings, but pretty much the scouting perception around the game. So Mets scouts are on the griddle for this one if it turns out that Bay cannot handle the spacious left field at Citi Field. ** be interesting to know what led them to this conclusion, but I'm sure that's proprietary info. Either that or it's pure bullshit 4. One general theme the Mets had in imagining what to do this offseason was the need to make an acquisition that would drop Jeff Francoeur to seventh in the order, a spot they feel his skills more merit. So right now the Mets lineup probably looks something like this: 1. Jose Reyes. 2. Luis Castillo. 3. David Wright. 4. Carlos Beltran. 5. Bay. 6. Daniel Murphy or Carlos Delgado (more on him in a bit). 7. Francoeur. 8. A catcher (still perhaps Bengie Molina, more on him in a moment, too). If I were writing out the Mets’ lineup -- especially if they land Delgado and Molina -- this is what I would do: 1. Reyes. 2. Wright. 3. Beltran. 4. Bay. 5. Delgado. 6. Francoeur. 7. Molina. 8. Castillo. Here is why: 1) A huge key to this Mets season is the need to get Wright going again. By hitting Wright between the speed of Reyes and the might of Beltran, he should get plenty of fastballs, plus his patience should help Reyes on the bases. 2) Castillo sees pitches, but he is no threat atop the lineup. I would rather have an opposing pitcher walk a minefield of Reyes/Wright/Beltran/Bay/Delgado as much as possible and not give that pitcher the reprieve of Castillo, who cannot drive the ball for extra bases. 3) Castillo at the bottom of the order at least provides some patience -- prior to the pitcher’s spot -- after Francoeur and Molina, two of the least patient hitters in the majors. I think if Francoeur, Molina and the pitcher are run together, the Mets are setting up a bottom third of the lineup that is going to be retired on 6-7 pitches in total too frequently. ** I tend to think people over-think lineups a lot of times, but I like the fact that they don't see Francoeur as middle of the lineup 5. When the offseason began, the Mets’ mindset was to move on from Delgado. And it was not just about how his not-very-athletic 37-year-old body would recover from hip surgery. They also wanted to change the tenor of the clubhouse, where Delgado’s personality could be, at times, dominant. But now that Delgado is playing again in Winter Ball, Mets officials are suddenly sounding very much like an organization that wants him back under a few conditions: 1) He shows he can play multiple days in a row at first base and can move in the field and on the bases without a noticeable limp or impairment. 2) That he is willing to take a contract similar to what Atlanta gave Troy Glaus; about a $2 million base with a chance to make say $8 million or more based on games played. The Mets are worried about the lack of lefty power in their current lineup. And if Delgado is willing to make himself a low financial risk then they would see that a gamble worth taking. Minaya, in particular, remains enamored with Delgado and the rest of the organization is suddenly open-minded to having Delgado return. ** For a Glaus-like deal I'd take him back for a year 6. There is another reason the Mets are more seriously pursuing Delgado. They see it as leverage against Molina. The Mets’ thought is that if Delgado shows them he is healthy then they will be less compelled to chase power behind the plate and could, instead, think more about defense with Henry Blanco joined by someone from among the current collection (Chris Coste or Omir Santos; Josh Thole is still probably too raw defensively to be considered to begin the season). Or the Mets could still turn to free agency with a Rod Barajas type or to trade, where they could still weigh Arizona’s Chris Snyder. ** anything that keeps them from over-committing to Molina is fine with me 7. One Mets official flatly said the organization will not budge from its offer to Molina of one year with an option. The Mets cannot see another team that needs a catcher that is willing to go to two years and -- even if there is -- the Mets are leery of giving the bulky, 35-year-old Molina more than one guaranteed year. ** Anything that keeps them from over-committing to Molina is double fine with me 8. The Mets see too many hurdles to a trade for Carlos Zambrano: 1) Their scouting reports on him from last year were that his fastball and changeup were both not as effective as in previous seasons. 2) They sense that Cubs executives are canvassing what teams might be willing to make a trade for Zambrano, but have serious doubts that Zambrano would actually waive his no-trade clause. 3) Zambrano makes $18 million annually for at least the next three years, and even if the Cubs were willing to take Castillo, the Mets do not think that is enough of a financial counterweight. And the Mets do not think the Cubs are willing to eat salary on Zambrano. ** I never believed this talk anyway 9. So without a trade for Zambrano, the Mets are back looking at that mundane group of free-agent starters. The Mets’ theory on starters has not changed all offseason. They felt Lackey stood out far and away more than anyone else. But after Lackey there was a pool of indistinguishable starters. They felt it imprudent to jump in early and overpay on Randy Wolf (three years, $29.75 million, Milwaukee) or Jason Marquis (two years, $15 million, Washington) when their scouts could not definitively say that those guys were better than Jon Garland, Joel Pineiro, Jarrod Washburn or Doug Davis. So armed with that theory, the Mets will wait for those starters to drop their prices until a number is reached at which they are comfortable. There is some sentiment in the organization to go for a more talented reclamation project, Ben Sheets or Erik Bedard. But the prevailing group now believes that sure innings is the most needed commodity because of the already fragile condition of Johan Santana, Mike Pelfrey, John Maine and Oliver Perez. ** once you decide you're out on Lackey I'm fine with bargain hunting among the rest 10. Mets officials say that they have not talked to the Red Sox for weeks about a Castillo for Mike Lowell trade. ** I'm surprised the talks ever went on at all

Nymr83 Jan 05 2010 09:06 PM Re: Sherman's notes

Had they gotten a bad vibe early on Bay, the Mets would have recalibrated and made a very strong push for John Lackey. I wish they'd gotten a "bad vibe" Multiple Mets officials said they know the metrics show the opposite, but their scouts contend Bay is a better defender than Holliday that the Mets come down on the scouts side of "scouts vs. stats" is to me the most disturbing piece of this article, if its even true. If I were writing out the Mets’ lineup -- especially if they land Delgado and Molina -- this is what I would do: 1. Reyes. 2. Wright. 3. Beltran. 4. Bay. 5. Delgado. 6. Francoeur. 7. Molina. 8. Castillo. Sherman for manager. 3) Castillo at the bottom of the order at least provides some patience -- prior to the pitcher’s spot -- after Francoeur and Molina, two of the least patient hitters in the majors not signing Molina would do more for the lineup's patience. I DONT like Castillo 8th, because he is a pure singles hitter who will leave the guys on base for the pitcher to clean up, and they might be tempted to go after him with a guy who cant hurt them on deck, i think i'd rather see Castillo 7th and the catcher 8th if castillo isnt 1st/2nd

batmagadanleadoff Jan 05 2010 09:39 PM Re: Sherman's notes

1. The Mets were pleasantly surprised early in the offseason at how open Jason Bay was to playing for them. That early read motivated the team to build their offseason strategy around him. Had they gotten a bad vibe early on Bay, the Mets would have recalibrated and made a very strong push for John Lackey Is this supposed to be an admission that the Mets never intended to sign both Bay and Lackey?

Frayed Knot Jan 06 2010 07:43 AM Re: Sherman's notes

[quote="batmagadanleadoff"]Is this supposed to be an admission that the Mets never intended to sign both Bay and Lackey?

Did anyone go into the winter with the impression that signing both was likely?

that the Mets come down on the scouts side of "scouts vs. stats" is to me the most disturbing piece of this article, if its even true.

Let's not act like the post-'Moneyball' era has somehow proven that stats have all the answers and scouts nothing to offer.

Edgy DC Jan 06 2010 07:50 AM Re: Sherman's notes

Or that (2) it has to be one or the other, or (3) the Mets making this choice means they've cast their lot with the scouts and forsaken data forever. Defensive data is still all over the field. And the Mets have shown themselves to consider it carefully.

seawolf17 Jan 06 2010 08:15 AM Re: Sherman's notes

[quote="Edgy DC":sw037nob]Or that (2) it has to be one or the other, or (3) the Mets making this choice means they've cast their lot with the scouts and forsaken data forever. Defensive data is still all over the field. And the Mets have shown themselves to consider it carefully.[/quote:sw037nob] Exactly. And besides, Holliday let a routine fly ball bounce off his chest in the biggest game of the year last year, so he's not exactly Garry Maddox out there.

Edgy DC Jan 06 2010 08:20 AM Re: Sherman's notes

I have to say that, for a leaky team, there's more alleged inside information in that one column than I've seen all offseason.

Centerfield Jan 06 2010 08:23 AM Re: Sherman's notes

This is very encouraging. If this is true, the organization seems to realize the limits of Jeff Francouer and the possible upside of Carlos Delgado. They also seem to get that Molina is not that good.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 06 2010 08:33 AM Re: Sherman's notes

I have no problem with Molina as a one-year bridge to (hopefully) Josh Thole in 2011. And if Thole is in fact ready in 2011, then Molina would just be dead weight in 2011 and 2012 if he were signed for that long. One year plus an option seems like the way to go. (One year without the option might be better, but I suppose it's possible that we'll want Molina in 2011.)

batmagadanleadoff Jan 06 2010 10:10 AM Re: Sherman's notes

[quote="Frayed Knot"][quote="batmagadanleadoff"]Is this supposed to be an admission that the Mets never intended to sign both Bay and Lackey?

Did anyone go into the winter with the impression that signing both was likely?

I don't know about "likely" but personally, I would've expected an attempt given the Mets needs.

duan Jan 07 2010 05:49 AM Re: Sherman's notes

I can accept them saying that they couldn't commit to 33 million for every year of the next 4/5 in 2 signings this offseason Winter of 2011 will see Beltran, Perez, Rodriguez, Castillo and Reyes (assuming option is picked up which it will be if he's fit) all being FA's, that's a lot of chunky dominos falling and I can see why they're trying to keep themselves pretty flexible for next years FA class where they'll have a better capacity to figure how many if any of the above they're going to want to retain, it also may be when we're best placed to roll the dice on a last hurrah of the current core. Tell you something though, they need another homegrown player or three to come through, we're about to start seeing the "value" days of Reyes and Wright come to a close.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 07 2010 06:15 AM Re: Sherman's notes

[quote="duan":11jrdr96]Tell you something though, they need another homegrown player or three to come through, we're about to start seeing the "value" days of Reyes and Wright come to a close.[/quote:11jrdr96] That startled me at first; I thought you meant on-field value, but then realized you meant dollar value.

G-Fafif Jan 07 2010 06:41 AM Re: Sherman's notes

They also wanted to change the tenor of the clubhouse, where Delgado’s personality could be, at times, dominant. Delgado's personality implied as a negative without further explanation. Too passive? Too quiet? Keeping David from discovering his inner captain? I've read these sorts of hints before, but I'm not sure I wholly get it. When the Mets are playing well and Carlos D. is hitting, he's professional and a calming influence. When they're not and he's not, he's not forthcoming enough after games.

Frayed Knot Jan 07 2010 07:32 AM Re: Sherman's notes

[quote="G-Fafif"] They also wanted to change the tenor of the clubhouse, where Delgado’s personality could be, at times, dominant. Delgado's personality implied as a negative without further explanation. Too passive? Too quiet? Keeping David from discovering his inner captain? I've read these sorts of hints before, but I'm not sure I wholly get it. When the Mets are playing well and Carlos D. is hitting, he's professional and a calming influence. When they're not and he's not, he's not forthcoming enough after games.

I never got it either and I wish those who bring this up would either say what they mean or drop the subject.
This guilt by implication thing has brought us to the point where I would say as a majority of Met fans now "know" that Carlos is a "clubhouse cancer" even though few if any could explain why or how - except for the handful who still want to cling to the now nearly decade-old Star Spangled Banner flap.

Edgy DC Jan 07 2010 08:02 AM Re: Sherman's notes

[quote="duan":1m6isrgw]Tell you something though, they need another homegrown player or three to come through, we're about to start seeing the "value" days of Reyes and Wright come to a close.[/quote:1m6isrgw] Part of the reason, I think, that they were so committed to Murphy and Parnell last year --- despite mixed results and scathing criticism. And part of the reason they stood pat at the deadline and haven't dealt any meaningful prospects this offseason. I applaud them for that. They may be trying to work on a bumper crop, even if none of them become superstars.

duan Jan 07 2010 08:36 AM Re: Sherman's notes

[quote="Edgy DC":32aevzg0] Part of the reason, I think, that they were so committed to Murphy and Parnell last year --- despite mixed results and scathing criticism. And part of the reason they stood pat at the deadline and haven't dealt any meaningful prospects this offseason. I applaud them for that. They may be trying to work on a bumper crop, even if none of them become superstars.[/quote:32aevzg0] that'd be fine too, you can pay superstars well if you're supporting cast is on small salaries. What kills you is the Brian Schneider types hoovering up $5 million here, JJ Putz' $8 million there.

Centerfield Jan 07 2010 08:54 AM Re: Sherman's notes

And the Bengie Molinas.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 07 2010 11:00 AM Re: Sherman's notes

[quote="Frayed Knot"][quote="G-Fafif"] They also wanted to change the tenor of the clubhouse, where Delgado’s personality could be, at times, dominant. Delgado's personality implied as a negative without further explanation. Too passive? Too quiet? Keeping David from discovering his inner captain? I've read these sorts of hints before, but I'm not sure I wholly get it. When the Mets are playing well and Carlos D. is hitting, he's professional and a calming influence. When they're not and he's not, he's not forthcoming enough after games.

I never got it either and I wish those who bring this up would either say what they mean or drop the subject.
This guilt by implication thing has brought us to the point where I would say as a majority of Met fans now "know" that Carlos is a "clubhouse cancer" even though few if any could explain why or how - except for the handful who still want to cling to the now nearly decade-old Star Spangled Banner flap.

I'm thinking-- and this is just a guess-- that this means, "Everyone on the team seems to defer to him as a veteran leader, but he doesn't go out of his way to give us great copy, so... "

Edgy DC Jan 07 2010 11:07 AM Re: Sherman's notes

I think it was a "God Bless America" flap.