Master Index of Archived Threads


Mets at the Deadline

Edgy MD Jul 26 2012 08:33 AM

Supposedly turned down Luke Gregerson for Daniel Murphy. One can imagine the temptation to over-pay for relief right now, but I'm glad they realize their offense is also critically pinched.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 26 2012 08:34 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

I'd be unhappy if they made that deal, they need to move Murphy for an outfielder or catcher who can hit.

The Second Spitter Jul 26 2012 08:42 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Stevie P would have made this deal in heartbeat.

Nymr83 Jul 26 2012 10:33 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

What is Gregerson's contract situation? I assume he is at least in his arbitration years but how long until free agency? As a "rental" this deal is terrible, even if the Mets were in it for this year which I think they shouldn't be. If he has several years of club-control left though then I kinda like it.

Ashie62 Jul 26 2012 10:38 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Gregorson Arbitration elgible 13/14 FA 2015

Ceetar Jul 26 2012 11:21 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

It's a horrible deal to trade a good contributing player for a part time player whose success might be in part park-induced.

Edgy MD Jul 26 2012 01:07 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

The Mets wrote: Daniel Murphy hit .523 at home in July, the highest home batting average in team history in a calendar month.

RealityChuck Jul 26 2012 01:36 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

The Second Spitter wrote: Stevie P would have made this deal in heartbeat. He would make any deal anyone offered him.

Frayed Knot Jul 26 2012 03:05 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Phillips would be more likely to deal a prospect (or more than one) away for something mediocre and established under the line of thinking that; "Hey, they're just prospects and they're probably years away". IOW: Wheeler, or maybe Familia, for Gregorson would be more his speed. "And, what the hell, we'll throw in this Nimmo kid too"

Nymr83 Jul 26 2012 03:17 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Edgy DC wrote: The Mets wrote: Daniel Murphy hit .523 at home in July, the highest home batting average in team history in a calendar month. He still lacks power or a position that he plays well defensively, I'd sell high on the batting average here.

Ceetar Jul 26 2012 04:58 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Nymr83 wrote: Edgy DC wrote: The Mets wrote: Daniel Murphy hit .523 at home in July, the highest home batting average in team history in a calendar month. He still lacks power or a position that he plays well defensively, I'd sell high on the batting average here. leads the team in doubles. is 31st in the league (Give or take) in XBHs. I wouldn't say that's..no power.

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 08:29 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

So, any predictions on who we've seen the last Metly act from?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 31 2012 08:32 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Hairy playing like he wants out, but not sure what can be gotten for him. I think it would be awesome if we could get something for Jon Rauch. Exciting but probably unfulfilling 5 and a half hours ahead of us.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 31 2012 08:43 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

My guess is that the Mets won't make any moves today.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 31 2012 08:44 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

That's my guess as well. Honestly, though... the trade they need to make most-- Davis or Duda outta Dodge, for something with real growth potential-- is one they can't make at this moment.

Frayed Knot Jul 31 2012 08:49 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

SOMEBODY has to want Rauch and Hairston - it's just a question of what's being offered in return. Neither is a guy you have to to move for salary, or chemistry, or make room for the rookie reasons, so you don't want to be dealing them just to deal. Also don't have to move them today. Hairy, in particular, is the type you see a team pick up with only weeks to go in the season (subject to all the obvious restrictions).

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 08:58 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: That's my guess as well. Honestly, though... the trade they need to make most-- Davis or Duda outta Dodge, for something with real growth potential-- is one they can't make at this moment. They really can't trade Johan. I wonder how whether there's Dickey talk out there. Alderson has shown himself to be a real restrained dealer. Letting the market come to him, with regard to Beltran, looks like it will pay off nicely. But he was also left holding Reyes at the deadline last year, and we ended up with... what? Plawecki and Reynolds? Plawecki and the unsigned Stankiewicz? And whatever productivity they got out of Reyes the last two months.

Ceetar Jul 31 2012 09:01 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Well the Mets haven't showed Alderson that there is any real impact to be had from a trade yet. He's struck me as a guy that would really like to tinker and adjust. We've seen it some with some of the roster shuffling via the minors, but I wonder how 'restrained' he would've been had the Mets hovered around that competitive point they'd been into July.

Swan Swan H Jul 31 2012 09:02 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

The Rangers DFA'ed Yorvit Torrealba to clear space for Geovany Soto. MLB Rumors says the Nationals are interested. Might he be worth a minor prospect as the RH platoon catcher, or is the fact that the Rangers think he's worse than Geovany Soto a red flag?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 31 2012 09:04 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Mets also apparently looking at Kelly Shoppach.

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 09:04 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Bat aside, if he's still got some big-league backstopping skills, I'm interested.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 31 2012 09:24 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Ceetar wrote: Well the Mets haven't showed Alderson that there is any real impact to be had from a trade yet. He's struck me as a guy that would really like to tinker and adjust. We've seen it some with some of the roster shuffling via the minors, but I wonder how 'restrained' he would've been had the Mets hovered around that competitive point they'd been into July. Sandy's still working with no money. The Brewers would probably salary dump K-Rod ... maybe ask for just a fringe prospect, too. Even if the Mets are buyers, what are they gonna buy with no money and an unwillingness to deal their real prospects? Scrubs like Geovany Soto. I'm fine with the Mets holding on to their Zack Wheelers, but it seems to me that the team's still effectively broke.

Swan Swan H Jul 31 2012 09:35 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

MLB Rumors saying that the Tigers are looking hard for a power hitter after getting 'discouraging news' on Victor Martinez returning from his knee injury. Maybe they'll get desperate and overpay for Hairston. Losing that division means likely facing either the Angels or the Rangers (I'm still not sold on the A's) in the play-in game, and that's an unpleasant prospect.

Ceetar Jul 31 2012 09:49 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: Well the Mets haven't showed Alderson that there is any real impact to be had from a trade yet. He's struck me as a guy that would really like to tinker and adjust. We've seen it some with some of the roster shuffling via the minors, but I wonder how 'restrained' he would've been had the Mets hovered around that competitive point they'd been into July. Sandy's still working with no money. The Brewers would probably salary dump K-Rod ... maybe ask for just a fringe prospect, too. Even if the Mets are buyers, what are they gonna buy with no money and an unwillingness to deal their real prospects? Scrubs like Geovany Soto. I'm fine with the Mets holding on to their Zack Wheelers, but it seems to me that the team's still effectively broke. I don't think we actually know how much money he's working with. Maybe they would've bought K-Rod, like was supposedly rumored, if they hadn't faltered.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 31 2012 09:52 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

I kinda think the money thing is an issue also. If they're scared of trading Hairston because they'd sell fewer tickets in the 2nd half then maybe they should be buying players but they're not doing that either.

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 09:57 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Well, there's certainly a case for standing pat.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 31 2012 10:10 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

I agree. If it were possible to trade Santana or Bay, then I would expect them to seriously consider it. But that's not the case. Hairston may conceivably be a part of a contending Mets club next year (if a lot of other things go right) and if they want to keep him so they can try to sign him, I'm okay with that.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 31 2012 10:13 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

I'm OK with the Mets standing pat, too. I was just saying that it's probably unreasonable to expect the Mets to acquire an impact player now given their financial constraints and self-imposed conditions for making a trade.

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 10:22 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Well, it's probably unreasonable anyway considering the hole they've dug, heightening the risk/reward ratio of such a move.

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 12:07 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Reports of the Tigers being Hairinterested. He'd fit well on the Sawx also, and help hurt Yankee hopes.

Vic Sage Jul 31 2012 12:10 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

i care not one iota about the rest of this season and would hope they'd trade anybody over 30 on a 1-year contract for the slightest of prospects, on the off-chance that they could find somebody to help them down the road when it will matter.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 31 2012 12:26 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Vic Sage wrote: i care not one iota about the rest of this season and would hope they'd trade anybody over 30 on a 1-year contract for the slightest of prospects, on the off-chance that they could find somebody to help them down the road when it will matter. I'm not quite where Vic is, but close. You have to figure with all their needs and all that brainpower, the org would and should be able to identify at least a few bodies with the potential to help that would be worth whatever you give up in not having Byrdak or Hairston around for a few months.

TransMonk Jul 31 2012 12:27 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

I'm where Vic is.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 31 2012 12:29 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

I think they want Hairston for next year, and figure that their chances of keeping him are better if he stays with the team for the remainder of 2012. If that's true, then I'm okay with not dealing him. Byrdak seems to be a bit of a different story. If they can even get a middling AA prospect for him, they might as well.

metirish Jul 31 2012 12:29 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

I'm there too......this is supposed to be a strength of this FO , finding nuggets of gold among the trash. Or is that just a myth?

Ceetar Jul 31 2012 12:37 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

There's probably very little value in trading guys just to trade them. Filler that has a slim chance of making the show? They've filled the lower minors with their own guys via drafting and what not. And anyone higher might need roster spots and that's a no go. Obviously if someone offers them something that's actually good they should take it, but otherwise it's probably pointless.

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 12:47 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

As a member of the 2AM crowd, I care about the rest of the season. Winning is fun.

Ceetar Jul 31 2012 01:03 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

I agree still 2 months and winning is fun and all that, but I think there's also value in finishing about .500, even if that's what the ceiling is right now. Just media relations wise, across baseball, positive stories. All that stuff. an 82-80 win team is on the rise, a 79-83 win team is wallowing in mediocricy.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 31 2012 01:21 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

40 MINUTES TO GO Pack those bags!

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 01:27 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Let's make like old days and break out our old Manny Ramirez wigs and have a demonstration. SIGN MANEEE NOWWW!!!

metsguyinmichigan Jul 31 2012 01:28 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

How many games was the team out in late August in 1973? Never give up! I do care about this season. We can't concede anything to the Nationals! The Nationals?

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 01:36 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Trade-horny Twitterers beating the crap out of Sandy out there.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 31 2012 02:04 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Scott Hairston + Mets TL4E

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 02:09 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

BREAKING: Raul Reyes demoted from Buffalo to Binghamton!

Gwreck Jul 31 2012 02:16 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Edgy DC wrote: Trade-horny Twitterers beating the crap out of Sandy out there. They're not all wrong. If there's no reason to believe trades will get you to the playoffs this year, why are we keeping upcoming free agents with trade value? Is there any actual evidence to suggest that a player is "more likely to re-sign" with the Mets versus getting something back and then still having a chance to sign that same player on the open market just like everyone else? Can we just file that idea away already, together with the measurement of how "clutch" a player is?

seawolf17 Jul 31 2012 02:19 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

"Scott... tell you what. We'll give you two years, $8 million in December. For now, go to California and play your ass off while we pick up a piece or two that'll help make our team better next year. Cool?"

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 02:22 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Gwreck wrote: If there's no reason to believe trades will get you to the playoffs this year, why are we keeping upcoming free agents with trade value? I can think of at least a half dozen reasons. Gwreck wrote: Is there any actual evidence to suggest that a player is "more likely to re-sign" with the Mets versus getting something back and then still having a chance to sign that same player on the open market just like everyone else? I'm certain. Gwreck wrote: Can we just file that idea away already, together with the measurement of how "clutch" a player is? But it's empirically true --- simply because for the remainder of the season, the post-season, and the beginning of the off-season, the team a guy is traded to has exclusive rights.

Ceetar Jul 31 2012 02:27 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Plus, he doesn't have to move, or move his family.

smg58 Jul 31 2012 02:37 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

It's tough to really argue if you don't know what's being offered for whom. If we can't do better than a marginal prospect for somebody like Hairston, I'd hold on to whatever faint hope exists for this season. I would agree, though, that holding on to a replaceable righthanded platoon player because you think it will help your chances of re-signing him is silly.

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 02:42 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Sandy explaining his choices: "Maybe you're not a Mets fan, Adam." Always making friends with the GMs is Mr. Rubin.

Gwreck Jul 31 2012 02:48 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Edgy DC wrote: I can think of at least a half dozen reasons. I think that's generous. 1. Might sign player to extension during balance of season/exclusive negotiating window. I'm not so clear on 2-6.

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 02:50 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

ON my way home.

Ceetar Jul 31 2012 02:57 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Gwreck wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I can think of at least a half dozen reasons. I think that's generous. 1. Might sign player to extension during balance of season/exclusive negotiating window. I'm not so clear on 2-6. 2. Player's family may already live in said city, particularly if it's been two years. NYC is a pretty fucking cool place. Especially when compared to say Kansas City. 3. People, even baseball players, generally dislike change. They like money more, but it's not like anyone's going to offer Hairston millions upon millions more than the Mets. 4. Perceived playing time. Players like to play. Hairston has got a lot of playing time this year and the Mets have a lot of lefty bats in Kirk, den Dekker, Duda, etc.

Vic Sage Jul 31 2012 03:34 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Gwreck wrote: If there's no reason to believe trades will get you to the playoffs this year, why are we keeping upcoming free agents with trade value? Edgy wrote: I can think of at least a half dozen reasons. Ceetar, your 2-4 reasons are only factors related to the increased signability of a FA if you keep him rather than trade, but that's all just 1 reason. Lets assume, arguendo (as they say in my biz), that it's true; keeping a FA rather than trading him makes it more likely we can re-sign him. So what? Hairston is a platoon OFer; he'll be 33 at the start of next season with a career OPS+ right at 100. He's a nice extra piece but not a starter, and not somebody you either build around or worry overmuch about losing. But if a playoff-bound team needs a RHed bat off the bench right now (or has had an injury and needs another OFer), then he is worth more to them than he is to us because we're not going anywhere this year. I REPEAT. WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE THIS YEAR (Those of you who are not suffering from delusions can continue). Ergo, you extract the extra value. That extra value is likely to take the form of a low-level minor leaguer who is projectible but a while away. It's not guaranteed value, but then again neither is Hairston's production guaranteed to the Mets next year (or to anyone else for that matter). And this same analysis is true for Byrdak, Cedeno, Torres, Rauch, Francisco and Ramirez. The only reason the Mets are keeping these guys around is either (1) they literally have NO offers for them (which is entirely possible), or (2) the team believes these guys will make the marginal difference between the Mets losing 80 games or losing 90. and That's only about how many more dollars the Wilpons can squeeze out of the fanbase. Personally, i'd rather see us bite the bullet and take the 90 losses while turning a few of our older short-term assets into younger long-term prospects than cling to the likes of Scott Hairston so we can make a desperate bid for a .500 season.

metirish Jul 31 2012 03:53 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

I got to agree with Vic here, Alderson made some comment about there "being value in staying competitive the rest of the way", to whom?, value to whom I wonder? Alderson in a Q&A What is the value in making the most out of these last two months? “I think there’s a lot of value in, for example, making a run, even if it’s unrealistic. I think there’s a lot of value in finishing well over .500. I think there’s a lot of value in finishing over .500. I think that those things create a perception. What happened or didn’t happen on the deadline may be largely forgotten if a team is able to create a positive impression the second half of the season. “I thought we would talk on this call about the fact that we didn’t add anything. And now we’re talking about why we didn’t subtract. Which is interesting to me. But as I said, we’re about changing impressions, changing perceptions. And you do that with wins and losses, primarily. And I understand our fans are disappointed with what’s happened the last three weeks or so. But it’s not the end of the season. “There are a lot of impressions to be made over the remaining two months. And I happen to think that those impressions can be more valuable than a Low-A prospect below the top 30 from some organization in the American League.” http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2012/0 ... ld_10.html

Ceetar Jul 31 2012 04:38 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

so Alderson agrees with me. (And Edgy) Every dollar 'milked' out of the fanbase is not going into Wilpons pockets. It's another dollar they save, surely, on the red ledger for this season. But every dollar less they lose in 2012 is another less dollar they think they need to budget to save in 2013. Every dollar via season tickets or whatnot put towards 2013 is also going to push up the theoretical payroll another dollar, which means value. The attendance is not going to be markedly increased by keeping Scott Hairston, but whether it's Scott or someone else, the Mets are going to need a righty pinch-hitting outfielder next year. The percentages favor Hairston being better in that role, and the marginal increase in money from being 'competitive' the rest of this year is probably enough to pay for Hairston. Even if that's only incidental from people coming to see Harvey or Dickey while the team is winning. And Dickey's chase for 20 wins will at least be interesting, and that doesn't happen without the offense. And it's not just Dickey. Maybe Wright's MVP race (which he will pick up strongly after this day off) has a legit chance if the Mets finish above .500. Probably not unless the Pirates miss, but you never know. It's similar to why Spring Training means nothing. because it doesn't count. Teams playing out the schedule are much the same. (remember hte Figueroa and Batista CGs at the end of the seasons) but teams playing competitive, if not playoff bound, baseball gives you more evaluation points towards these guys that Alderson has to make a decision on soon. Additionally, this team is much like last year. fun, 'spunky' but ultimately flawed. The Mets finished under .500 last year despite all that and you heard roughly NONE of those positive things during the offseason when everyone picked them to finish last. another sub-.500 will be more of the same, which means less renewals (And ad money and all the incidentals) and less interest. Less people thinking "Hey, the Mets are fun, let's get a 6-pack." The economy may be picking up a little, and if it does people will be getting jobs. particularly people out of college. new revenue for Mets fans and maybe the Mets looking interesting is all it takes for them to drop a couple bucks on a 15 game 'weekend' pack. There is almost no value in a getting a low-tier prospect. The chances of that guy doing more

Gwreck Jul 31 2012 05:12 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Ceetar wrote: The attendance is not going to be markedly increased by keeping Scott Hairston, but whether it's Scott or someone else, the Mets are going to need a righty pinch-hitting outfielder next year. The percentages favor Hairston being better in that role, and the marginal increase in money from being 'competitive' the rest of this year is probably enough to pay for Hairston. Exactly what "percentages" favor Hairston being "better" in the role of "right-handed bat off the bench?"

Ceetar Jul 31 2012 05:17 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: The attendance is not going to be markedly increased by keeping Scott Hairston, but whether it's Scott or someone else, the Mets are going to need a righty pinch-hitting outfielder next year. The percentages favor Hairston being better in that role, and the marginal increase in money from being 'competitive' the rest of this year is probably enough to pay for Hairston. Exactly what "percentages" favor Hairston being "better" in the role of "right-handed bat off the bench?" Pick a right handed bat off the bench that's going to be reasonable to acquire for an equal price? What's the chances he's better than Hairston? My money's on Hairston being the quickest/most effective use of the Mets time and money to acquire and produce.

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 06:25 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Gwreck wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I can think of at least a half dozen reasons. I think that's generous. 1. Might sign player to extension during balance of season/exclusive negotiating window. I'm not so clear on 2-6. 1) He's the cleanup hitter. He's the hottest hitter. There is a value in winning games today, for tomorrow may never come. Even should it come, it may not come for me, and it may not come for you. Even as we post, there are fans out there for whom tonight is the last Mets game they'll ever see. There are others for whom tonight is the first game they'll ever see. Whether they see it live in San Francisco, or stay up late and tune in by cable television, radio, internet, for them and for all fans, but particularly for them, may it be a win. 2) And each of those first-time fans may be a last-time fan if the team stinks tonight without Hairy. 3) There is a value to the other members of the team in not selling strong teammates out from under them. It tells them their struggles are not in vain. It keeps them together and motivated. It reminds them that their GM and front office gives a shit, and it's good that they give a shit. If the value of that sort of morale boost is merely marginal this year, it has a long-term benefit beyond this year. Think , for instance, of what it could mean to David Wright --- who has slogged through all sorts of shit with this team and kep' a cheery face and been a model citizen with, at times, less positive reinforcing organizational feedback than he likely deserves. If re-signing him is the number-one organizational priority this off-season, why invest yourself these last two months in making things even harder for the guy to win? Why make his career even more Sysiphian? 4) "Might sign player to extension during balance of season/exclusive negotiating window." This shouldn't be poo-pooed. A player has a much greater history of returning to the team of his last contract than to the team who traded him mid-season the year before. 5) Diminishing the team has an effect on the profitability of the team, which hurts the financial returns, which diminishes future investment. 6) The front office, doubtless, has done more than their share of professional calculations regarding how many wins keeping Hairston is worth and how many any potential packages (unbeknownst to us) were worth. They considered these using the best art and science of player evaluation and valuation that they keep privy to themselves, and were unimpressed with the birds in the bush vs. the bird in their hand. We all may disagree --- possibly correctly --- when applying our math, but it's wrong to think they haven't put a whole lot of thought into it with a whole lot more facts and data available to them. 7) Wins are wonderful things. The idea that a win isn't worth anything unless it is the margin between a playoff appearance and its lack is a joyless thing that takes the excellent wonder of baseball and guts the shit out of it. It's a sad thing to stand for. 8) You invest in losing for later wins often enough, you just become a loser. Do this rarely and strategically. 9) Keeping Hairston shows faith in the plan. Showing faith in the plan keeps everybody on project. On focus. Trades re-write the plan, throwing chaotic elements into the machine, throwing shadows of uncertainty on the clarity of the work day. 10) Speaking of the plan, maybe that fucking blueprint gets all bolluxed up if you trade Hairball and have to promote Duda or Den Dekker when you really think it's healthier for them to be in the minors. 11) Trades diminish team identity, watering down the brand. Maybe when you're the Yankees, it's cool that putting your logo on a mailbox will make the fans go and hump the mailbox. That's not the team I want to root for. I like continuity, and it can be maintained while progressing with team improvements. 12) Maybe they just like Scott Hairston. He demonstrates great work habits for the younger players, buys them clothes, treats women well, but warns his teammates when negative women are hanging around. He puts long hours in ironing the rough spots off his game but takes a child-like joy in celebrating the things he does well. Maybe, if anybody is more enthusiastic about showing up to community events, then it's his wife. And he brings his father around, and Jerry tells his son's Met teammates about the history of the game, and growing up the son of a disappointed negro leaguer finally getting all of seven plate appearances in the bigs, and how proud his father was when Jerry finally got the chance he had been denied, and it makes everybody really appreciate the chance they have, and try harder to be worthy of it every day. And if they trade Scott, well, fuck it, maybe they fear it'll just tell the players all that stuff's for shit, and they're all going to look out for number one, because no matter ho much they sacrifice for the city and the organization, if the team is 8 1/2 out on July 31, no matter how well they're playing and how much they're bringing to the organization, they'll get sold down the river just like Scott did. 13) And a lucky number 13, maybe, just maybe, Scott Hairston knows where the bodies are buried.

metirish Jul 31 2012 06:33 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

I do admire your reasoning Edgy but in regards to # 9-1- and 11 I have a hard time believing that Hairston is part of a plan or part of a brand in any meaningful way, he was signed as a bench player and that is what he is, a nice player on a team hitting the playoffs....I should add want the team to win and watch and root for them nightly, I am not upset that they didn't do anything today.

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 06:53 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Part of a plan is having players in place who can do the job until others are ripe and ready. Hairston's success may be one the great lucky payoffs in team history of a veteran bench player cracking the lineup and succeeding --- the all-Valentin team --- but Branch Rickey'll tell ya luck is the residue of design. And George Patton'll tell ya that heroes are the ones who hold the line until reinforcements come .(I made that up. Repeat: I made that up. That's not an actual quote or even a paraphrase.) Having people who are ready to step in when others fall or flounder is part of a plan, and not a little-considered one. He's certainly not a bench player any more.

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 06:59 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

I'll add that under the new collective bargaining rules, the calculus is changed for both buyers and sellers. Scott Hairston, should he jump at the end of the season, brings the Mets no free agent compensation, unless they are willing to offer him some real healthy compensation only to get spurned. But also, any team trading for him would be entitled to no compensation at all, should he jump at the end of his brief tenure. I'll add also that the team may still make a waiver deal or two in July.

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 07:04 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Also adding --- having a 2.2% chance to make the playoffs ain't good, but it ain't nothing. That's 11 times what the Phillies were showing today.

RealityChuck Jul 31 2012 07:39 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

This mania to make a move -- any move -- just so that we don't sit around doing nothing it pure idiocy. If offers were made for Hairston (and, it's only speculation that other teams made them), there's no guarantee that the "prospects" we'd get for him would ever appear in a single MLB game. Teams aren't stupid. They don't give away good prospects for bench players unless they are forced to. So how does it help the team to trade Hairston for a couple of cup-of-coffee players? If an offer was made, then how do you know that the offer was anyone who would ever help the team? The assumption here is that it's always good to get prospects, but, really, if the prospects are going to be duds, then there's no reason to trade anyone. An obvious parallel was Frankie Rodriguez last year. What happened to the prospects we got for him? Or the various prospects Omar picked up in the winter of 2006. Prospects, prospects, prospects -- bit deal.

Edgy MD Jul 31 2012 08:20 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Yeah, but I said as much using more words. Rodriguez, as far as he goes, netted Danny Herrera (<<<<), who got hurt and was forced to miss the season, and Adrian Rosario, who was great at St. Lucie this year (0.89 ERA in 20.1 innings) and nearly the opposite at Binghamton (5.81 in 26.1 innings).

Ceetar Jul 31 2012 08:30 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Edgy DC wrote: Also adding --- having a 2.2% chance to make the playoffs ain't good, but it ain't nothing. That's 11 times what the Phillies were showing today. If you give up when things look dire, you'll never have any miracles. I think it's easy to look back at the last couple of years, particularly 2006-2008, and realize that there were plenty of times when we could've used the solid contributing averageish player, where what we ended up with were Jeremy Reeds and David Newhans and Ben Johnsons. Having Hairston instead of those guys makes a lot of difference. Next year we're going to want one of those guys, and the odds that the Johnson we pick up being the known quantity we have in Hairston?

metsmarathon Jul 31 2012 09:11 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

i don't think alderson is talking to us, the fan, when he says he wants to change and build and maintain a perception. he's talking about the perception among his own players and across the league. well, he also needs to change the mindset of the fans, so that they too view the mets as a winning franchise heading in the right direction. and selling off any piece that someone will pay you for runs strongly counter to that motive.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 01 2012 07:36 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

I certainly wasn't rooting for the Mets to make-a-move-any-move. But it's kind of silly to suggest that Hairston is more than what he is-- a 33-year-old, fungible bench guy with a great attitude on a hot streak. Pick a right handed bat off the bench that's going to be reasonable to acquire for an equal price? What's the chances he's better than Hairston? My money's on Hairston being the quickest/most effective use of the Mets time and money to acquire and produce. Maybe. But if not him, then Gomes, or Ross, or Andruw Jones, or Reed Johnson.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2012 07:44 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

I'm not sure who's suggesting he's "more than what he is." But there are two ways to do that. One is to suggest he's too valuable to trade. Another is to suggest he's too valuable not to trade.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2012 07:54 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Sam Hairston, first US-born African American on the White Sox, back in his days as a Cleveland Clown.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 01 2012 08:08 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Well, I guess we can agree there are arguments to be made either way, and although I think here probably is a $$ aspect to it the Mets aren't acknowledging it's not a big deal. One thing that hasn't gotten a lot of thought here was Alderson's notion of there being some value in finishing in 3rd place (although he didn't come right out and say it). That's an easy thing to dismiss as unimportant at the moment, but last night I was doing some historical Met stuff and came to realize that there is a difference in perspective. You finish in 3rd place this year, then move up. So like this guy says, let's build something this summer. [youtube:1iwrk3w5]xgBfoOJR6Rs[/youtube:1iwrk3w5] (is this a great song or what?!? Drink on top of water towers)

Edgy MD Aug 01 2012 08:15 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

The Hold Steady is the best band Brooklyn has produced during the latter-day hipster era. REM jangles from the guitars with more attack, and confident, insistent, but heartbroken vocals, straight out of Bob Mould's best days. They kick right through so much bullshit as a band. They're the 2012 Mets as a band. They finish in third this year, then they move up.

Vic Sage Aug 01 2012 09:38 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 01 2012 10:23 AM

1) He's the cleanup hitter. He's the hottest hitter. There is a value in winning games today, for tomorrow may never come. Even should it come, it may not come for me, and it may not come for you. Even as we post, there are fans out there for whom tonight is the last Mets game they'll ever see. There are others for whom tonight is the first game they'll ever see. Whether they see it live in San Francisco, or stay up late and tune in by cable television, radio, internet, for them and for all fans, but particularly for them, may it be a win. Yes, it's true, we could all be dead tomorrow, so lets live today to its fullest. Hakuna Matata. But given that, i still want my team to be smart, to plan long-term (even if an asteroid is on its way), and to make sacrifices in the short-term so that the team can benefit in the long-term. As for Hairston being the "cleanup hitter", that's an indictment of the lineup, not a testimonial for Hairston. That he's the "hottest" player is a description that implies its opposite; at some point he won't be, and the HUGE sample size that is his major league career to date indicates he'll revert to his mean level of production (i.e., a 100 OPS+ player, with a big platoon differential). 2) And each of those first-time fans may be a last-time fan if the team stinks tonight without Hairy. One could do the math and figure out exactly how many wins Scotty is worth over a replacement-level player, but i'm not going to. I have a hunch its a few; not many. And even in the Mets 100+ win seasons, they lost at least 60 games. If a first-time fan watched a losing game in `86, did he never watch another? Possibly, i suppose. But you don't make organizational plans around such eventualities. You try to build the best organization to produce the most wins OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, leading to chances at sustained post-season play. Sometimes that requires sacrifice in the short-term. 3) There is a value to the other members of the team in not selling strong teammates out from under them. It tells them their struggles are not in vain. It keeps them together and motivated. It reminds them that their GM and front office gives a shit, and it's good that they give a shit. If the value of that sort of morale boost is merely marginal this year, it has a long-term benefit beyond this year. Think , for instance, of what it could mean to David Wright --- who has slogged through all sorts of shit with this team and kep' a cheery face and been a model citizen with, at times, less positive reinforcing organizational feedback than he likely deserves. If re-signing him is the number-one organizational priority this off-season, why invest yourself these last two months in making things even harder for the guy to win? Why make his career even more Sysiphian? I think this is an excellent point. But players really have to think in the short-term; they only HAVE a "short-term" (though Edgy argues "so do we all" and metaphysically speaking, i can't argue with that). 4) "Might sign player to extension during balance of season/exclusive negotiating window." This shouldn't be poo-pooed. A player has a much greater history of returning to the team of his last contract than to the team who traded him mid-season the year before. I don't poo-poo it (despite my enjoyment of the phrase). I just don't think enough about Hairston's future to value it over the potential of a prospect. 5) Diminishing the team has an effect on the profitability of the team, which hurts the financial returns, which diminishes future investment. ah, now we're getting closer to the nub of it. the Wilpons want to get more money out of fans this season. Of course, losses this season would NOT necessarily diminish future investment, if he owner's had the wherewithal and willingness to withstand short-term losses to underwrite a plan for long-term success. But i've seen no indication that they have either the wherewithal or the willingess. And so my major complaint is that THIS is why Hairston (and the other aging part-timers with some residual value for a playoff team) were not moved. To cover Fred's financial ass. 6) The front office, doubtless, has done more than their share of professional calculations regarding how many wins keeping Hairston is worth and how many any potential packages (unbeknownst to us) were worth. They considered these using the best art and science of player evaluation and valuation that they keep privy to themselves, and were unimpressed with the birds in the bush vs. the bird in their hand. We all may disagree --- possibly correctly --- when applying our math, but it's wrong to think they haven't put a whole lot of thought into it with a whole lot more facts and data available to them. I will totally concede that Sandy & Co did their homework; i just don't know that they had the final say. If they wanted to write off the season to get some legit chips, do we think Fred and his idiot son would let him? I have my doubts. I'm not saying i KNOW, and i wouldn't put the onus on anybody to prove a negative, i just have my suspicions. I don't TRUST THEM. 7) Wins are wonderful things. The idea that a win isn't worth anything unless it is the margin between a playoff appearance and its lack is a joyless thing that takes the excellent wonder of baseball and guts the shit out of it. It's a sad thing to stand for. But then why are "wins" wonderful things? Can't you just enjoy the simple joy of the game without needing your team to win at all? There's a generation of Pirates fans who've grown up that way. But I doubt they're happy about it. No, I'm sorry, i don't go to church... whether its the church of baseball or otherwise. I don't require my team to win a championship every year (or any particular year), i just need to know that decisions are being made to get it into the best position possible, not just to make the owners the most money possible (these are not always the same thing). Then i'm more than happy to enjoy a season and let the chips fall where they may. Does that make me jaundiced, impure? Is that a position too "sad" for me to stand for? ok. 8) You invest in losing for later wins often enough, you just become a loser. Do this rarely and strategically. agreed. but mightn't this be such a time? 9) Keeping Hairston shows faith in the plan. Showing faith in the plan keeps everybody on project. On focus. Trades re-write the plan, throwing chaotic elements into the machine, throwing shadows of uncertainty on the clarity of the work day . you've advocated against trades pretty much under any and every circumstance, so i take this point with a grain of salt. If we can agree that Alderson's plan is about getting younger and building with kids... how does moving 30+ part-time players for A-ballers contradict that? The question is rhetorical. 10) Speaking of the plan, maybe that fucking blueprint gets all bolluxed up if you trade Hairball and have to promote Duda or Den Dekker when you really think it's healthier for them to be in the minors. Or maybe you pick up a similar spare part veteran, until they are. Meanwhile, you've continued to stock your low minors with lottery tickets. 11) Trades diminish team identity, watering down the brand. Maybe when you're the Yankees, it's cool that putting your logo on a mailbox will make the fans go and hump the mailbox. That's not the team I want to root for. I like continuity, and it can be maintained while progressing with team improvements. Your talking in generalities. The specifics of the players i've identified in this thread have nothing... NOTHING... to do with the Mets brand or identity. None of them came thru the system or are tied to long-term deals. 12) Maybe they just like Scott Hairston. He demonstrates great work habits for the younger players, buys them clothes, treats women well, but warns his teammates when negative women are hanging around. He puts long hours in ironing the rough spots off his game but takes a child-like joy in celebrating the things he does well. Maybe, if anybody is more enthusiastic about showing up to community events, then it's his wife. And he brings his father around, and Jerry tells his son's Met teammates about the history of the game, and growing up the son of a disappointed negro leaguer finally getting all of seven plate appearances in the bigs, and how proud his father was when Jerry finally got the chance he had been denied, and it makes everybody really appreciate the chance they have, and try harder to be worthy of it every day. And if they trade Scott, well, fuck it, maybe they fear it'll just tell the players all that stuff's for shit, and they're all going to look out for number one, because no matter ho much they sacrifice for the city and the organization, if the team is 8 1/2 out on July 31, no matter how well they're playing and how much they're bringing to the organization, they'll get sold down the river just like Scott did. a good point, but the Mets are not a civic works project. Unless all that good behavior translates into team success, i don't give a fuck. And the notion that trading a player is "selling him down the river" is just your own projection. He'd be going (in a deadline deal) to a team in a pennant race... you don't think players LIKE to be in pennant races? I think they do. If he loves NY so much, he can re-sign with us in the winter. I hear we'll have an opening in CF. 13) And a lucky number 13, maybe, just maybe, Scott Hairston knows where the bodies are buried. quite possibly. unfortunately none of the corpses are a Wilpon.

TransMonk Aug 01 2012 09:45 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

That was an EPIC exchange and fun to read from top to bottom. Great work, gentleman.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2012 09:47 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

There's a any number of distortions and misrepresentations of what I actually wrote there, Vic. But thanks otherwise for your time in reading and otherwise thoughtful replies. OE: I'm not arguing that the choices were necessarily correct, only saying that there's any number of reasons supporting them, answering the Gwreck question: "If there's no reason to believe trades will get you to the playoffs this year, why are we keeping upcoming free agents with trade value?" They could certainly have made the wrong choice. That's true everyday. I'm saying the choice is reasonable and defensible.

Vic Sage Aug 01 2012 09:55 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

i quoted you verbatim. people can make of my responses what they will. I tried to be fair, and acknowledge points, but i'll accept your characterization of my characterization. However, I did not attempt to mischaracterize. As the founder of Trade In Tomorrow 4 Today Society (TITTS, for those of you of more recent acquaintance), i find it awkward to have to make this argument, but the Wilpons have changed the parameters under which the Mets operate and so must I, as a fan, in assessing their moves.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2012 10:01 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Well, if you believe Sandy, nobody was offering a prospect in their top 30, and even in the best system, it's hard to find a guy with more than a cup of coffee in his future that Baseball America (or whoever) hasn't noticed yet.

MFS62 Aug 01 2012 10:05 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Edgy DC wrote: And George Patton'll tell ya that heroes are the ones who hold the line until reinforcements come .(I made that up. Repeat: I made that up. That's not an actual quote or even a paraphrase.) Edgy, I don't care whether or not you made it up. This ex-military guy thinks it is absolutely true. Later

Vic Sage Aug 01 2012 10:08 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

i don't know that its in Sandy's job description to tell the public the truth about what he was and was NOT offered, especially if such facts might be used to embarrass his boss. that being said, it might be entirely true we were offered virtually (if not literally) nothing. And if was a baseball decision, then fine. But Sandy's been talking alot about winning down the stretch, and getting to 3rd place, and shit like that, that makes me suspicious. also, Piazza was a 30th round pick. Guys develop at different rates. One organization might prematurely bury a prospect that another team thinks has potential, and the change works wonders. I'm not saying its likely, i'm just saying it happens. Is it that less likely than re-signing a traded Hairston in the off-season? or signing an equivalent player, while getting the added value of a prospect? I don't think so. could be wrong. I'd be happy to just defer to Sandy, if i thought Sandy was in total control. but i don't think he is.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2012 10:45 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

OK, one at a time. The Mets don't need to get to third place. They are in third place. Piazza wasn't a 30th round pick. He was a 62nd round pick. Lastly, neither I nor Alderson spoke of where people who were allegedly offered were drafted, but where they were supposedly objectively ranked as prospects within the system. Where Piazza ranked a year or two into his minor league career would be the real analogy. (Baseball America had him as #38 in all of baseball in 1993, so presumably top five in the Dodger system.) You're a lawyer, and you're trained to find hairline cracks in an argument and drive a chisel in them so they appear to be gaping wounds that demonstrate a foundation that cannot hold. I'm impressed by you and think you belong in a courtroom, not at a desk, and I wish you to be on my side when I'm in trouble, even if I hate when you play your skills against me. But you miss the basic thingie here, though, and that's that I'm not suggesting that keeping Hairston is some pre-eminent value that eclipses any other, only answering Gwreck in asserting that there is a value there to be weighed against others. Most of the factors I noted were clearly small, but real.

Vic Sage Aug 01 2012 11:18 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

But you miss the basic thingie here, and that's that I'm not suggesting that keeping Hairston is some pre-eminent value that eclipses any other, only answering Gwreck in asserting that there is a value there to be weighed against others. Most of the factors I noted were clearly small, but real. i didn't miss that thingie; i totally concede it. I just think the actual weighing was really only between what you described in your points (5) and (6), the revenues for the balance of this season against what we might get in return. The rest is window dressing and some of which was your own personal mishaagas. as for the factual misstatements in that last post, they were from lack of research, and i apologize, but my point is the same. low draft picks (and even undrafted FAs) in a system can sometimes, over time, develop into good major league players. and a guy who is ranked 50th in one team's system might be another team's 20th best prospect, so that whole "nobody offered us a top 30 prospect" line is just a way of shading the truth by Sandy, even if accurate (which i don't doubt it was). Perhaps we were offered a 40th prospect from a great system, who has high upside. Would that be sufficient to move Scott Hairston? Maybe not to you, but maybe to me, and maybe it would've been enough for Sandy in a vacuum, but not as an employee of the Wilpons. Just a hypothetical, you understand.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2012 11:28 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Vic Sage wrote: The rest is window dressing and some of which was your own personal mishaagas. No, there's actual value there throughout, to greater or lesser extents.

Ceetar Aug 01 2012 11:52 AM Re: Mets at the Deadline

That Piazza in the rough prospect could just as well be a guy the Mets already have. Especially the level we're talking about, as they're guys Alderson probably had the opportunity to draft on his own if he thinks they had that upside. And I think that's part of it. Sandy's been here long enough now, two drafts and two offseasons, that he's pretty comfortable with who he's selected to fill the minors at the lower levels. And there will be more opportunities for trades so it's not like this is nothing. Maybe Alderson's swapping a Valdespin for an outfielder next season and says "Hey, throw in that A level prospect you were offering for Hairston, just to even things out a bit." Since he knows the guy is not that highly valued, and the opposing GM certainly isn't going to feel fleeced out of him since Alderson doesn't even think he's worth Hairston. It's just filler, but he could get another lottery ticket.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2012 12:14 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Vic Sage wrote: Perhaps we were offered a 40th prospect from a great system, who has high upside. Would that be sufficient to move Scott Hairston? Maybe not to you, but maybe to me, and maybe it would've been enough for Sandy in a vacuum, but not as an employee of the Wilpons. Just a hypothetical, you understand. So if he doesn't trade minor league talent for major league talent, it's because the Wilpons won't or can't spend money. If he doesn't trade major league talent for minor league talent, it's also because the Wilpons won't or can't spend money.

Vic Sage Aug 01 2012 03:21 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

ya see? that whole "distortion and misrepresentation" thing ain't so hard after all, is it? don't sell yourself short.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 01 2012 04:39 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Metsblog reporting that Rosenthal reporting that the Mets and Fish were working on a deal that would have sent Bay to Miami for Heath Bell and Buck. I'd pull the trigger on that.

Ceetar Aug 01 2012 05:13 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Metsblog reporting that Rosenthal reporting that the Mets and Fish were working on a deal that would have sent Bay to Miami for Heath Bell and Buck. I'd pull the trigger on that. not in a million years. Money is equal next year, but both of their guys signed for a year beyond that. And both..suck. So we'd have a sucky 'closer' or reliever, or whatever (And a vesting option! GAmes finished!) and a mostly worthless backup catcher. The alternative is having to pay 15 million for Bay to play for someone else when we release him.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2012 06:22 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Vic Sage wrote: ya see? that whole "distortion and misrepresentation" thing ain't so hard after all, is it? don't sell yourself short. What exactly were you suggesting about the Wilpons?

RealityChuck Aug 01 2012 06:35 PM Re: Mets at the Deadline

Let's do a gedankenexperiment. Let's assume you're a GM. Let's assume you're in the pennant chase and want a right handed bat off the bench like Hairston. Who would you give up? To make it simpler, use the Mets minor leaguers. Who would you trade away to get him to come off the bench for two months?