Master Index of Archived Threads


We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Mex17 Dec 15 2012 10:04 PM

Who are they? Where are they? How do we get them?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 15 2012 10:53 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

That's the things you need when you're climbing up a mountain, and need to clip into the rocks, right? An athletics store, I'd imagine. Hairston's got to be more likely to re-sign, now that that asshole Dickey's out of the clubhouse, right?

Ceetar Dec 16 2012 06:49 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

And no one told Sandy?!

Swan Swan H Dec 16 2012 07:04 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

The list of unsigned FA outfielders, RH batters only. There's one switch hitter available but he's too expensive, and anyway I'd drink bleach before I cheered for Nick Swisher. Jeff Baker Mark DeRosa Matt Diaz Ben Francisco Scott Hairston Austin Kearns Darnell McDonald Ryan Raburn Juan Rivera Cody Ross Delmon Young Yeesh. Ross, according to MLB Trade Rumors, is probably looking for 2 years, around $13-14M. Diaz and Rivera look like they're done, Kearns was done a few years ago, Young is a DH who never walks, and the rest are utility types. Hairy put up 1.5 WAR in 2012, just .1 less than Ross, and they're the same age. If wants to come back and isn't looking for a crazy deal, why not?

Mex17 Dec 16 2012 01:47 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Here we go. . . http://www.amazinavenue.com/2012/12/14/ ... o-hamilton Bourjos for some lower-level minor leaguer (like Mazzoni or Tapia) and then sign Ross for something like 2 years/$14-15 million. It's either that or somehow convince Major League Baseball to waive the requirement that teams need to field three outfielders at any time during the course of a game.

MFS62 Dec 16 2012 01:59 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

The Jays have a 23 year old righthanded hitting outfielder named Moises Sierra at AAA. Seems to be ready for at least a shot at the majors. http://www.baseball-reference.com/minor ... erra001moi Maybe the Mets can sweeten the pot a bit and get the Jays to add him to the Dickey deal. Later

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 16 2012 02:08 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Raburn could be a nice, bargain-y Ross/Hairston alternative. He's coming off a terrible year, but he's .256/.324/.472 vs. righties, career-wise... and plays a passable second and third, along with the corner OF spots.

Nymr83 Dec 16 2012 02:28 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Mex17 wrote: It's either that or somehow convince Major League Baseball to waive the requirement that teams need to field three outfielders at any time during the course of a game. there is no such requirement. we can play 5th infielder Justin Turner right up the middle behind the bag and tell trhe pitching staff to try very hard to induce grounders. But Turner's bat just doesnt make that a fun idea anyway.

Frayed Knot Dec 16 2012 02:46 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Mex17 wrote: Who are they? Well if we told you that it wouldn't be a surprise when you unwrapped them on Christmas morning. Where are they? At the moment they're at an undisclosed location playing poker with Elvis, Jimmy Hoffa, Kim Jong-Il, Frank Pentangeli, and a bunch of FBI agents. How do we get them? 'Outfielders R Us' has a nice selection this time of year. Or, if you order through 'Amazon' and their salaries total more than $10 million, you get free shipping.

Ashie62 Dec 16 2012 04:01 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

MFS62 wrote: The Jays have a 23 year old righthanded hitting outfielder named Moises Sierra at AAA. Seems to be ready for at least a shot at the majors. http://www.baseball-reference.com/minor ... erra001moi Maybe the Mets can sweeten the pot a bit and get the Jays to add him to the Dickey deal. Later That's Ruben Alou's cousin!

MFS62 Dec 17 2012 09:47 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Heard on WFAN this evening that Sandy says his next target is a starting pitcher. In a rebuilding phase, why not try one of the kids in that spot and concentrate on an outfielder? (Unless he already has a deal for an outfielder ready to be moved to the front burner) Later

smg58 Dec 18 2012 05:24 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

There are a number of seviceable starters we could get for a one-year deal, and Alderson might be able to act quickly on that front. The outfield will probably take more time, but I hope a decent plan is in place.

Ceetar Dec 18 2012 05:35 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

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.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2012 06:36 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I suspect that they'll sign Hairston or Ross, and put whichever one in the outfield with Nieuwenhuis and Duda, who get 2013 to show whether or not they're worth considering as part of the future.

Swan Swan H Dec 18 2012 08:05 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Ceetar wrote: 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. Mike Puma of the Murdoch Fishwrap, around 11 hours ago: Mike Puma ?@NYPost_Mets Also, it sounds as if the Mets may have a new OF addition in the next few days. Front office has been working on something. Was only told it's a name that hasn't been linked to the Mets.

seawolf17 Dec 18 2012 08:07 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Saw a post or a tweet somewhere this morning about Coco Crisp. Not the ideal solution, but I'd take him.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2012 08:10 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Hopefully they'll also throw in Cap'n Crunch.

Swan Swan H Dec 18 2012 08:18 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

seawolf17 wrote: Saw a post or a tweet somewhere this morning about Coco Crisp. Not the ideal solution, but I'd take him. Why not? Still shows pretty good defensive stats in CF, bats righthanded, 39 SB last year with just 4 CS, one-year left on his contract at $7M with a $7.5M option and a $1M buyout for 2014. Funny stat - .825 OPS in 81 starts leading off, .547 in 24 starts batting second.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 18 2012 11:04 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Ceetar wrote: 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. I'm gonna guess that it will be... Collin Cowgill!

MFS62 Dec 18 2012 09:36 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: 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. I'm gonna guess that it will be... Collin Cowgill! Nice addition as a platoon player, but the thread title is still valid. Later

metirish Dec 20 2012 01:52 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

There is talk on Twitter about Grady Sizemore.

MFS62 Dec 20 2012 02:04 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

metirish wrote: There is talk on Twitter about Grady Sizemore. IIRC he's still around 30 yrs old. His performance and playing time dropped off a cliff a few years ago due to injuries. He last made $5 million, so he may take a lot less to get back into the salary race with a good year or two. Worth a shot. Later

Ceetar Dec 20 2012 02:09 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

metirish wrote: There is talk on Twitter about Grady Sizemore. been for a while. I mean, if you want to toss him a minor league contract go for it, but he had microfracture surgery and won't be around until midseason.

Vic Sage Dec 22 2012 12:46 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

cody ross reportedly just signed with the D-Backs for a 3-year deal ($ unknown, but maybe $25m range). It would have been useful to have a RHed .260/20hr/80rbi guy in our OF, but not a 32-year old one on a 3-year deal at over $8M/yr. So I'm ok with this. Bring back Hairston, if available for no more than a 2-year deal. Otherwise, its Cowsill as our RHed OFer?

Frayed Knot Dec 22 2012 01:26 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Yeah, it's a sellers market for these spare OF parts. Both NYC teams are looking for a RHH-OF types and others are as well, so the odds of holding one of them to a one-year deal are slim. Hell, the Yanx had to go for two years just to keep Ichiro on board. Hopefully they were tricked into complacency by his brief post-trade surge and have forgotten that he's 39 y/o and that Brett Gardner essentially fills the same role, actually had better stats in 2011 prior to his injury, and is nine years younger.

Ashie62 Dec 22 2012 03:58 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

At the moment, we have a AAA OF

Edgy MD Dec 22 2012 04:24 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

We have an Achieving Above Awesome outfield.

Frayed Knot Dec 26 2012 07:01 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

LHP-masher Matt Diaz inks a minor league deal w/the Yanx The good thing --aside from the fact that he's coming off an injury, got only 105 ABs for the Braves last year, and meets the minimum 35 y/o for the current Yanqui roster-- is that this reduces the competition for Scott Hairston by one club. The Yanx apparently balked at Hairston's desire for a 2-year deal.

Edgy MD Dec 26 2012 08:31 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Diaz is a money suck for his teams of late.

Ashie62 Dec 26 2012 11:10 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

OK, help me out please...who is the likely starting LF as of now?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 26 2012 11:22 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Doodoo.

smg58 Dec 27 2012 07:01 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Ashie62 wrote: OK, help me out please...who is the likely starting LF as of now? The good news is that Alderson still has six weeks before ST to answer these questions (I'm assuming you're also going to ask about the starting CF and RF). Duda is the starting leftfielder as of now, but if I could swap him for somebody who has a bit less upside as a hitter but can actually play the outfield, I'd do it.

Frayed Knot Dec 27 2012 07:08 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

^ smg58 is Mo Vaughn today -- 11 years to the day after the trade that brought him to New York ^ ^ ^ ^ Several of this crew spent the night chatting with Bobby V in his short-lived Queens restaurant about this and a variety of other topics just a day or two later.

metirish Dec 27 2012 07:31 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

11 years , wow The Mets according to Bobby V were going to score over 800 runs with the revamped lineup.....they didn't of course.

Ashie62 Dec 27 2012 10:44 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

If doodoo is in LF is Nieuwenhuis in CF and RF to be determined? There's little chance Baxter starts in the OF for the bulk of the season I hope...Nothing personal Mike.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 27 2012 10:45 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Nieuwenhuis would probably platoon with Cowgill in center. And yes, at the moment the rightfielder is Baxter, but it may turn out to be Hairston.

Ashie62 Dec 27 2012 10:46 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Oh dear God..help I guess theres not much left out there but thats a pretty rough mix....

Edgy MD Dec 27 2012 11:01 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

The current outfield roster includes Baxter, Cowgill, Duda, Nieuwenhuis, and Jordany Valdespin, with Jamie Hoffman, Juan Lagares, and Cesar Puello on the outside. Maybe Raul Reyes, Matt den Dekker, Wilmer Flores, Joe Bonfe, and/or Cory Vaughn get looks too. And heck, maybe Vince Vaughn and Hippo Vaughn. But it's December, of course, so calling out to the almighty may be premature. We knew this was where the team was thinnest going into the offseason.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 27 2012 11:07 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I'd actually be okay with an outfield of Hairston/Nieuwenhuis/Cowgill/Duda. Three of the four are young guys with something to prove. Since 2013 isn't likely to be a contending season, we can take the opportunity to let Kirk, Lucas, and Cow show what they can do. If even one of them proves that they ought to be in the mix for 2014, it would be one less hole to fill next winter.

Ceetar Dec 27 2012 11:10 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Don't sell Mike Baxter short.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 27 2012 11:12 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Can I sell him a coat and a pair of pants?

Edgy MD Dec 27 2012 11:14 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Ceetar Dec 27 2012 11:14 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Can I sell him a coat and a pair of pants? as long as they're blue and and orange.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 27 2012 06:46 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Ceetar wrote: Don't sell Mike Baxter short. For reals-- 2nd best OBP on the TEAM, 3rd most value in last year's outfield (and he had half as many PAs as the two in front of him).

Ashie62 Jan 01 2013 04:54 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Ceetar wrote: Don't sell Mike Baxter short. He's 28, was dumped by the Padres..Has 260 career AB's and a couple of HR's....so, really? He's a nice 5th OF.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 01 2013 05:18 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

8 Hall of Famers are among the players the Padres have dumped. Also, Adrian Gonzalez, Tony Fernandez, and a host of other All-Stars. I'm not saying Baxter is an AS-in-waiting... I'm just saying, that measuring stick has the distinct whiff of boo'stink. That he's had 260 PAs in parts of three seasons is a lot more indicative of the situations in which he found himself/what others thought of his ceiling/how hard he went into walls to preserve no-hitters than of his talent level or performance. Also, he's put up a .354 OBP in those PAs, and shown himself to be the best guy at not making outs in the current Met outfield. He's at worst a useful 5th OF, and maybe more, and that's virtually all that anybody here has said about him.

Swan Swan H Jan 02 2013 09:11 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

The Mets signed Andrew Brown to a minor-league-spring-invite deal. MLB stats aren't much, but he hit .308 with 24 HRs and 98 RBI last season at Colorado Springs. Mostly a 1B-corner OF, played a little 3B as well.

Ashie62 Jan 02 2013 10:22 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: 8 Hall of Famers are among the players the Padres have dumped. Also, Adrian Gonzalez, Tony Fernandez, and a host of other All-Stars. I'm not saying Baxter is an AS-in-waiting... I'm just saying, that measuring stick has the distinct whiff of boo'stink. That he's had 260 PAs in parts of three seasons is a lot more indicative of the situations in which he found himself/what others thought of his ceiling/how hard he went into walls to preserve no-hitters than of his talent level or performance. Also, he's put up a .354 OBP in those PAs, and shown himself to be the best guy at not making outs in the current Met outfield. He's at worst a useful 5th OF, and maybe more, and that's virtually all that anybody here has said about him. Anyone for One year of Bobby Abreu for 7 million. I believe her is still out there.

G-Fafif Jan 04 2013 04:43 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Relax. Rubin reports Justin Turner's got this one covered. A team insider said Justin Turner actually should get strong consideration as a platoon outfielder too, despite no experience out there. That could also allow the Mets to have both Brandon Hicks and Omar Quintanilla on the roster as infielders. I like that "a team insider" is necessary to dispense a juicy tidbit like this. You mean we can have BOTH Brandon Hicks and Omar Quintanilla? Don't toy with us, Mets. I mean, seriously, don't get our hopes up like that unless you mean it. (OTOH, Quintanilla and Hicks each logged time for playoff teams last year, so to use a phrase I heard Andy Martino proffer on Hot Stove last night, they're winning players.)

Mex17 Jan 04 2013 05:38 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

If this is a Turner vs. Brown vs. Bixler competition for the right-handed half of a RF platoon (assuming Cowgill is sharing CF with Nieuwenhuis) then put me in the Brown camp right now! At the very least, he is the only one who has shown any pop in his bat (albiet in AAA). Plusm he is the only one who is not a converted middle infielder.

Ceetar Jan 04 2013 05:40 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

G-Fafif wrote: Relax. Rubin reports Justin Turner's got this one covered. A team insider said Justin Turner actually should get strong consideration as a platoon outfielder too, despite no experience out there. That could also allow the Mets to have both Brandon Hicks and Omar Quintanilla on the roster as infielders. I like that "a team insider" is necessary to dispense a juicy tidbit like this. You mean we can have BOTH Brandon Hicks and Omar Quintanilla? Don't toy with us, Mets. I mean, seriously, don't get our hopes up like that unless you mean it. (OTOH, Quintanilla and Hicks each logged time for playoff teams last year, so to use a phrase I heard Andy Martino proffer on Hot Stove last night, they're winning players.) The Mets have no SS depth and they have plenty of (albeit mostly crappy) OF depth. This is sloppy connecting the dots at best. I hope they re-sign Cedeno (or did he go somewhere already?) but right now Turner and Quintanilla (and Hicks..did they sign anyone else?) are it for backup SS. They need 1 in Queens, sure, but they probably need some in Vegas. It doesn't look like anyone is particularly ready for promotion there, and Flores stepped aside to third last year.

smg58 Jan 04 2013 07:30 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

The primary role of any reserve on a National League team is to pinch hit, so hitting should generally take priority over fielding. I'd much rather see Turner work on his defense at second and short than in the outfield. The same goes for Valdespin. If they make the team, you want it to come at the expense of a weak-hitting infielder rather than a decent-hitting outfielder.

Edgy MD Jan 04 2013 07:55 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Well, Valdespin certainly showed himself capable as a pinch-hitter.

Frayed Knot Jan 04 2013 09:57 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Wasn't good at much else, but he sure was a capable pinch-hitter.

Vic Sage Jan 04 2013 10:48 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Depends on definition of "capable". First of all, its an assessment based on 47 plate appearances last year. That's too small a sample size to feel comfortable about projecting how he'd do in that role going forward. Secondly, while he certainly had some big pinch HRs (5) and RBIs (10), he also hit .214 in that role, with an OB% under .300. Again, too small a sample to know if he could maintain either the great power rate or terrible hitting rate. Until a guy has established himself over time, PHing is like relief pitching in that, due to small sample sizes, performance can be radically inconsistent from season to season. That's why its hard to put together a reliable bullpen or bench that stays together for a period of time.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 04 2013 10:51 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Valdespin: pinch hitting :: lightning strikes : home energy

Edgy MD Jan 04 2013 10:57 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I certainly didn't say his performance level was sustainable. But the record certainly demonstrated he was capable.

Ashie62 Jan 04 2013 11:06 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

It would appear all will have a chance to compete for the OF....If Hairston does sign I see him as a 400 AB type option so the rest would be competing for those other AB's and filling in left and center...

Ashie62 Jan 05 2013 09:49 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

The OF options never seem to cease!

Mex17 Jan 06 2013 07:35 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders. Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 06 2013 06:34 PM

It looks like they are going to go with this array of Duda/Nieuwenhuis/Cowgill/Baxter/Brown, platoon heavily, and see how it shakes out while maintaning cost control/"payroll flexibility" going into 2014. Oddly, I'm actually OK with this. Maybe, just maybe, out of this something useful can rise to the top (if even only for platoon or depth purposes going forward). I am still of the opinion that, if Santana pitches well in the first half, he will be able to net us one good OF prospect so long as we pay the remainder of the 2013 salary AND the $5 million buyout. So, IMO, we should be able to get 1/3 of next year's OF out of Johan. Then, now that we are establishing/assuming that there is money to spend next winter, here is a list of the free agents that ought to be available. . . http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/02/2 ... gents.html Out of this, I have picked out some names that I like (varying levels of age, production, and financial committment): Mike Morse David Murphy Martin Prado Ellsbury Granderson Choo Nelson Cruz Corey Hart Hunter Pence Not a bad list to choose from. Depending on other factors, hopefully we can look at locking up one or two of these options. If we do not get one superstar, then maybe we get two productive pieces. Plus, it is possible in my mind that Flores can fit into second base and be a source of offense from a somewhat non-traditional spot. If that happens, then Murphy becomes a tradable asset. If Flores cannot handle second but still hits, then he a a huge chip for a trade as a third base prospect that we would not need. I think that at this point can assume that we willl also be getting plus offense long-term from another somewhat non-traditional area, that being catcher. All of this will take time (probably most of the season, or at least until the All-Star Break) to play out, so with that said, I am actually OK with the approach that they are taking right now with the outfield. Never would have thunk it when the winter started.

MFS62 Jan 06 2013 09:14 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

If they are going to spend, say, half a year experimenting with different platoon combinations, I'd take a chance on free agent Grady Sizemore. By that time he is scheduled to be recovered from last year's surgery to finally correct the problem that has debilitated him for over two years. If healthy, he would immediately be one of (if not) the most productive outfielders. And as he gets stronger, would be the best. Because he has been injured for two years, perhaps he would sign a reasonable, second year loaded, one year plus option contract to re-prove himself. He's still under 30. Later

Frayed Knot Jan 06 2013 09:25 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

MFS62 wrote: Because [Sizemore] has been injured for two years, perhaps he would sign a reasonable, second year loaded, one year plus option contract to re-prove himself. He's still under 30. You misspelled the word FIVE. Sizemore's last full season was in 2008 When I first saw him play I immediately thought he was the next Carlos Beltran. Unfortunately that turned out to be more accurate than I imagined - except that he started falling apart at an even younger age.

MFS62 Jan 06 2013 09:50 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I got this from my Ohio buddy, and Indian fan. The problem began to surface back then. It took a while to figure out what was wrong, and initially prescribed rest instead of surgery. Didn't work. He had the same problem (with his foot? legs?) on both sides. So they tried surgery on the first side 2+ years ago. He recovered as well, if not better than they thought. So they performed the same surgery on the other side last year. Track record of how fast his body heals says he could be ready to play by mid 2013. The question would be how quickly he scrapes the rust off his baseball skills. If the price is right, and doctors confirm the second surgery went well, why not? Later

Edgy MD Jan 06 2013 12:47 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Well, because looking at him missing the first half the season, and then maybe another month to get up to speed, we're looking at a one-year contract that could possibly land two months. Two months of a player whose surgery and recovery may or may not be successful. It's hard to figure out what the right price is for that.

Ceetar Jan 06 2013 01:15 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: Well, because looking at him missing the first half the season, and then maybe another month to get up to speed, we're looking at a one-year contract that could possibly land two months. Two months of a player whose surgery and recovery may or may not be successful. It's hard to figure out what the right price is for that. bare minimum probably, what you're basically buying is the inside knowledge of watching him rehab and the first chance to make him a real offer for 2014.

Edgy MD Jan 06 2013 02:39 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Or you could tack a 2014 option on with the offer. But this thread was started to address a present need.

smg58 Jan 06 2013 04:56 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: Or you could tack a 2014 option on with the offer. But this thread was started to address a present need. I'm with Edgy on this. If you can afford to gamble a second season on Sizemore, you can afford to make the Opening Day outfield presentable.

Ashie62 Jan 07 2013 04:22 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Sandy says that may be about it for improving the OF, for now anyway.. [url]http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/59746/alderson-conceivable-mets-done-adding-ofs

Ceetar Jan 07 2013 04:51 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Ashie62 wrote: Sandy says that may be about it for improving the OF, for now anyway.. [url]http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/59746/alderson-conceivable-mets-done-adding-ofs he says nothing of the sort, just that it's one conceivable result. Any speculation is Rubin's, which isn't worth much.

Ashie62 Jan 07 2013 09:34 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Sandy is quoted as saying it is conceivable that thats it for now which is what I posted. Not Rubin's words at all.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 11 2013 02:28 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Jon Heyman says Mets view Hairy as Plan B, could still try for bigger name. I think they almost gotta. Internet getting horny for Dbaggs Upton, which would make sense from my POV if the price is rite.

Edgy MD Jan 11 2013 02:43 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Speculation is that price could include Wheeler, and that ain't right. I imgaine Sandy could go for Familia, Mejia, Flores, and maybe a fourth guy. If the Mets could push them towards Niese, they might.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 11 2013 02:44 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I ain't including neither Neisy nor Wheelie in any deal. Almost anyone else is OK

Ceetar Jan 11 2013 02:45 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

personally I feel like Upton was much more likely before Dickey was traded. Less pitching depth now, so can't afford to trade pitching as much.

Vic Sage Jan 11 2013 03:08 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

i like Upton; he's 25 and already a .280/20-20 guy, with more upside as he comes into his prime. He's under contract for 3 more years ($9m/$14.5/$14.5) and, while not a cheap deal, I wouldn't be surprised if he averaged 25-30hrs/100r/100rbi over the next 3 years, which would make that deal worth it. AZ seems motivated to move him for some reason, and we obviously have a need. But we'd likely have to give up 4 prospects for him (like the deal Seattle offered and AZ accepted, before Upton vetoed it) and so, between that and his salary, i don't see it happening. still, if it were to cost us a package of Familia, Mejia, Flores, and the Toronto pitcher we got in the Dickey deal, it would likely have little impact on the major league club's W/L record for the next 3 years, so I'd probably do it.

smg58 Jan 11 2013 04:11 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

The issue with Upton is consistency. Two of his last four seasons have resulted in an OPS close to .900, and two have resulted in an OPS below .800. Plus he's been playing in a hitter's park; his career OPS+ of 117 actually equals that of Ike Davis (who had a higher OPS+ last year). The Mariners were willing to include a prospect in Tajiuan Walker that is more highly rated (in at least one survey) than any of ours, too, so between the salary and the trade cost we'd be paying for the three best seasons of his career. Getting less than that from him would not be an option.

Frayed Knot Jan 11 2013 04:30 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Yeah, that package the Mariners were offering sounded pretty hefty. Several prospects who were not just highly-rated but also already at AA or higher. Maybe the Ms are lucky Upton turned it down (he has partial N-T protection). Upton's OPS+ numbers have done an off-year/on-year thing. 107 OPS+ in his first full season jumped to 129 in 2009, but that was followed by 110, then 141, and then 107 last year. His XBHs, for instance, fell from 75 in 2011 to just 45 in 2012. And then there are the H/R splits: His overall .278/.357/.475 line breaks out to .307/.389/.548 while in the desert, but just .250/.325/.406 away from it

Ashie62 Jan 11 2013 05:30 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Upton...high risk/high reward.

Frayed Knot Jan 11 2013 08:31 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Ashie62 wrote: Upton...high risk/high reward. and throw in ... high price. A bushel full of prospects just for the privilege of then paying him $38 million over the next three seasons. On the other hand, you'll be getting a very talented player who was once a #1 overall draft pick (and who David Wright used to beat up) for his age 25 through 27 seasons.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2013 05:15 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Newsday reporting this morning that the Mets and Diamondbacks have resumed discussions about Upton. Mets resume trade talks for Diamondbacks' Justin Upton

smg58 Jan 12 2013 08:25 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I just don't see a good match. The Mariners offered more than we got for Dickey, and Upton is not as good.

Edgy MD Jan 12 2013 08:55 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Well, as good and as valuable are two different things. Upton has an apparent future that is harder to envision for H.R. Dickenstuff. But maybe the market has shifted.

Ashie62 Jan 12 2013 05:37 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Don't you a young bopper in RF? Upton for Niese Familia and Flores

Ashie62 Jan 13 2013 04:42 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Milton Bradley "may" be available..

Edgy MD Jan 13 2013 05:08 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

By available, we mean out on bail? Milton Bradley is an embarrassment to board games everywhere.

metirish Jan 15 2013 11:06 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Heyman #mets won't give up Wheeler, sides don't see a fit for Justin Upton trade at this point.

smg58 Jan 15 2013 12:30 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

There's a moral in there about giving a no-trade clause to somebody already under your team's control.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 16 2013 04:36 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Reports this morning that Hairston wants two years, $8 million, and that the Mets have "balked".

smg58 Jan 16 2013 05:41 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I don't think that price is terribly unreasonable off the season he had. Alderson gave more than that to Frank Francisco, after all. I could understand the caution if there's a better plan A out there, but that remains to be seen.

Ceetar Jan 16 2013 05:51 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I don't think Hairston's going to be worth that myself, nor do I think Alderson wants to give him the second year. If the Mets are set on getting better, finding real outfielders is among the goals and Hairston is not part of that, so why give him four million if the plan is clearly not to have him playing?

metirish Jan 16 2013 06:24 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders. Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 16 2013 06:52 AM

Not sure about that Ceetar , Hairston seems every bit as "real" an outfielder as the ones we will be trotting out there.I think that price is reasonable, very surprised he's not been snapped up already......

Frayed Knot Jan 16 2013 06:49 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Yeah, not quite sure what kind of "real" outfielder you're waiting on. And if by chance some better-than-Hairston w/RH bat happens to fall into Sandy's lap in the near future (I'm always in favor of that happening) then nothing says that Nieuwenhuis and/or Duda can't sit or bide their time in Las Vegas. There's nothing to indicate that, if Hairston signed here, he would play every bit as much as he played last season.

Edgy MD Jan 16 2013 07:08 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

[list]Bill James calculates Hairy Projections .250 / .307 / .444 // .751. Bill James calculates Brown Projections: .264 / .330 / .475 // .805.[/list:u] Obviously, there's no guarantee it shakes out that way, and obviously it's better to have both than one or the other, and obviously you may have aesthetic reasons for preferring brown projections vs. hairy ones, or hairy ones vs. brown ones, but there's a certain liberating grace to accepting that veterans with modest but not overwhelming track records aren't the only ones who can fill your bench, just the more expensive one. (And let's be honest --- what are you paying more for, except ass coverage?) It sure as heck demonstrates a faith in the guys you pay to do your scouting and statistical evaluations. It's certainly not the only way to go, but it's the way that gave us Mike Baxter instead of Willie Harris in 2012.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 16 2013 07:15 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Brown?

Edgy MD Jan 16 2013 07:21 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Yeah, Brown.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 16 2013 08:11 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Yes, Brown. Forgot about Brown. (Although... in my defense: "Andrew Brown.")

Vic Sage Jan 16 2013 09:00 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

[list]Bill James calculates Hairy Projections .250 / .307 / .444 // .751. Bill James calculates Brown Projections: .264 / .330 / .475 // .805.[/list:u] Obviously, there's no guarantee it shakes out that way, and obviously it's better to have both than one or the other, and obviously you may have aesthetic reasons for preferring brown projections vs. hairy ones, or hairy ones vs. brown ones, but there's a certain liberating grace to accepting that veterans with modest but not overwhelming track records aren't the only ones who can fill your bench, just the more expensive one. (And let's be honest --- what are you paying more for, except ass coverage?) It sure as heck demonstrates a faith in the guys you pay to do your scouting and statistical evaluations. It's certainly not the only way to go, but it's the way that gave us Mike Baxter instead of Willie Harris in 2012. projections are very nice, particularly Bill James projections, but one is based on a guy's actual major league production, and the other is based on minor league production with no major league track record. I know Bill espouses a view on a reliable projectability of minor league numbers to major league production, but there is a greater uncertainty there than in projecting a major league hitter's production, barring aging and injury (which are not factors with Hairston). Now is that additional certainty worth $4m a year, for the next 2 years, over Brown's minimum compensation? It would absolutely be worth it, if the Mets payroll was in the range of the other major media market teams ($150/$200m), but its not, so budget constraints probably force Sandy to look at riskier less expensive options.

Edgy MD Jan 16 2013 09:55 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Why is there greater uncertainty? I'm not so sure there is. If those lines have any meaning, they should represent a mean of all possible outcomes. I just think (and I think Sandy kinda thinks) the distinction is largely a matter of luck between the talented but less consistent veterans who get big league contracts ever year for a decade and the talented but less consistent veterans who get AAA contracts every year and wait for injuries. The former frequently just happened to get on a good groove when they got a callup, and the latter has yet to have their hot streaks coincide with their occasional big league cups of coffee. Any certainty you buy with Hairston, I think, is having the additional assets of Brown and Hoffman waiting behind him if he should falter. I agree that has a value, but I'm not sure what it's value is.

Ceetar Jan 16 2013 10:01 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I think the bottom line is that Hairston is extremely valuable as a reserve outfielder, but wants to be paid more like a starter or at least a key piece. The Mets don't view Hairston as more than a stop-gap and backup plan, and haven't yet shown the desire to pay over what they feel a player is worth to them.

Ashie62 Jan 16 2013 10:43 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

The Mets are getting a bargain at 8 million for 2 years for Hairston. That should be chump change to management for an OF with a resume of Major League Success.....

G-Fafif Jan 16 2013 02:00 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Relax. Daniel Murphy has it on good authority that Collin Cowgill comes to play. "I’ve heard nothing but good things about Collin Cowgill. I actually got a text message right after he [got traded] from Andy Green, who used to be in our organization. He said that we’re going to love this guy -- that he comes to play hard every day. He said he’ll really fit in well in the clubhouse." Good thing Cowgill's not bringing too many personal effects, otherwise he might fit no better than snugly in the clubhouse. Andy Green, meanwhile, is still looking out for his 2009 teammates' best interests.

Edgy MD Jan 16 2013 02:05 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I take it with confidence that nobody will have to cut his tee-shirt to shreds.

Ceetar Jan 16 2013 02:11 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I have Andy Green's autograph (well, I guess my wife does..so I have half right?) on a baseball somewhere. He wore 10 in 2009 Spring Training.

G-Fafif Jan 16 2013 02:14 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

You're gonna like this guy. He's all right. He's a good fella. He's one of us. You understand?

Vic Sage Jan 16 2013 03:27 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Why is there greater uncertainty? I'm not so sure there is. Why? because Hairston has accumulated around 2400 plate appearances at the major league level, with an OPS+ of 100. Whereas Brown has about 150 appearances... with an OPS+ of 72, not that it means anything with such a small sample size. Which is my point. Brown is ALL projection; Hairston has actual production which can be measured and more reliably projected. So yes, i'd say there's greater certainty that Hairston can be a useful major leaguer next year, since he has already BEEN a useful major leaguer for extended periods during the last 9 years. With Brown, all you can do is discount his small sampling of major league ABs, look at his minor league numbers and hope. But until he does it, he hasn't done it, and any projection that says he CAN do it is just that... projection. Hairston has done it, for more than 1 season over his career, and in the absence of an injury history or indications of premature aging, his production is more likely to REcur than Brown's is to OCccur. I don't know why this is a controversial view; it seems to me self-evident. The only question is how much is that greater degree of certainty worth? If $4m is meaningless to a team, then its worth spending on it. If it will impact a team's ability to fill out the rest of the roster, then its probably not worth doing. Since we're being operated with a budget 50% to 100% less than the big market teams currently are spending, clearly money is an issue and Hairston won't be worth signing.

Ashie62 Jan 16 2013 03:53 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I am very surprised Hairston is still on the market.Decent resume, reliable, reasonably priced...Huh..don't get it.

Edgy MD Jan 16 2013 08:06 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Vic Sage wrote: Which is my point. Brown is ALL projection; Hairston has actual production which can be measured and more reliably projected. This is where I need more info. Is it verified that the James system is more reliable for players staying at the same level than for players jumping up a level? I don't know. You're proceeding with hope either way. The question is open to what relative degree.

Ashie62 Jan 16 2013 11:54 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I'd be a lousy GM as I really believe the 4 or 8 million for Hairston is MLB chump change.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 17 2013 06:47 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Joel Sherman, New York Post wrote: On another front, an industry source confirmed the Mets have rejected Scott Hairston’s asking price of two years and $8 million. It is believed the Mets countered with a one-year offer worth $2 million, leaving the two sides at a stalemate in negotiations. The 32-year-old Hairston earned $1.1 million in 2012, during which he batted .263 with 20 homers and 57 RBIs. The source pointed to Endy Chavez, Ramon Castro, Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez — four recent free agents for which the Mets overspent in terms of years and dollars — as the reason the team will be judicious pursuing Hairston. Even if Hairston doesn’t return, the source said he would be surprised if the Mets don’t upgrade an outfield that includes Lucas Duda, Kirk Nieuwenhuis, Mike Baxter, Collin Cowgill and Andrew Brown. The Mets recently inquired about Arizona’s Justin Upton, but talks never gained momentum, after the Diamondbacks asked for top pitching prospect Zack Wheeler. Endy Chavez? Ramon Castro? Were the Mets badly burned by either of them? I'm suspecting that the real reason the Mets turned down the two years, $8 million is because they feel that nobody else is offering anywhere near that much, and that they can get him for less. And if he does go elsewhere, it's not a major loss. I do hope he comes back, but I'll manage to move on with my life if he doesn't.

Ceetar Jan 17 2013 06:51 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I like how he goes from Hairston to Upton like it's not a McDonald's to Peter Luger's comparison.

Vic Sage Jan 17 2013 07:42 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

again, this wouldn't be an issue if either (a) we were being run like a big market team, or (b) we were one 4th OFer/RHed PHer away from serious contention. But neither is true, so while i'd like them sign Hairston, or a comparably experienced RHed power bat that can play all 3 OF slots (oh, wait, there isn't one out there), its really not a big deal one way or the other for 2013. We are not desperate for a platoon/4th OFer... we're desperate for a FIRST OFer. And Scotty isn't one.

Ceetar Jan 17 2013 07:46 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I'm not sure what 'spending like a big market team' means. Because we're in New York Sandy should not worry about throwing away an extra $4 million here and there? For one, that's part of the problem that got us into this mess. Giving Cora the full $2 million to be a backup, or Castillo the extra $6 in the form of an extra year. That stuff can add up. And two, if you're going to overpay, I'd rather give a guy like Dickey, or Wright, or Upton that extra $4 that maybe they don't deserve than a guy you hope isn't even a starter.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 17 2013 07:49 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Aren't you the guy who said that money wasn't finite?

Ceetar Jan 17 2013 07:49 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Aren't you the guy who said that money wasn't finite? It's not, as an investment. investing in 4th outfielders with poor OBP is a good way to run out of even infinite money.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 17 2013 07:57 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD Jan 17 2013 08:00 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I run out of infinite money at least twice a week. I don't know how it keeps happening.

Ceetar Jan 17 2013 08:01 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: I run out of infinite money at least twice a week. I don't know how it keeps happening. Call Visa, they'll help.

seawolf17 Jan 17 2013 08:04 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I know a guy who can help too. Haven't heard from him in a while, so he must be on vacation somewhere, but he's trustworthy. He'll get back to you soon. Bernard Madoff. Just look him up.

Vic Sage Jan 17 2013 08:26 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I'm not sure what 'spending like a big market team' means. Why not sure? It's fairly easy to figure out. The top 6 payrolls in baseball are all in the $150m-$200m range. The Mets are not going to be one of them, opting to spend in the $80-$90m range, along with a bunch of mid-market teams. Because we're in New York Sandy should not worry about throwing away an extra $4 million here and there? For one, that's part of the problem that got us into this mess. Giving Cora the full $2 million to be a backup, or Castillo the extra $6 in the form of an extra year. That stuff can add up. yes, because we're in NY, we should be operating with a budget competitive with other similar market teams. $4m here or there SHOULDN'T matter, if you've only committed $85m of a $150m budget. But of COURSE it matters if you're only planning to spend $90m total, and you still have a lot of slots to fill. And no, it wasn't the Cora contract that "got us into this mess". It was the Bay contract, and the Perez contract, and F-Rod's contract and, frankly, the Santana contract... it was long overpriced commitments on big key guys that didn't produce that hamstrung the organization, not $2m to Cora. And it was suspect talent evaluation that allowed them to look at Castillo and say "i want this guy as a starter on my team", never mind the contract price. But when a big market team makes mistakes like these, they eat it and move on. When the Mets do it, they are hamstrung. And two, if you're going to overpay, I'd rather give a guy like Dickey, or Wright, or Upton that extra $4 that maybe they don't deserve than a guy you hope isn't even a starter. Value is a matter of context. First of all, Hairston had around 400 plate appearances over 135 games last year and so saying "he isn't even a starter" or carping about his OBP misses the point; he was a major component of whatever offense we had, and with a young all-LHed OF, he is precisely the kind of experienced RH-ed bat somebody looking at this lineup objectively would say is needed. But how much to pay for that? Well, "starter's money" is considerably more than $4m/yr, so Hairston's not even asking for starter's money. And if the Mets were close to contention, and had more room in their projected payroll, then Scott's marginal utility to them would be greater and they would, could and should pay the man, because they could afford him and he would put them closer to the their goal. Of course, you still have to factor in issues of competition for his services and scarcity of his skills in the market, but you don't really have to get to that level of analysis because neither the "payroll" nor "contention" criteria are met by the 2013 Mets, so yes, I would agree that Sandy should pass at that price.

Ceetar Jan 17 2013 08:38 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Because the value of win 89-91 that Hairston could provide an expected 89 win team is worth a hell of a lot more to a team than the value of win 75-77 (or whereever you'd like to put the Mets) It doesn't really have to do with budget, or cheapness, or past situation. It's the current situation of the Mets and even if the Mets were 'big market' spenders, it doesn't make sense to spend it on Hairston, which is consistent with Alderson's MO so far.

Vic Sage Jan 17 2013 09:16 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Because the value of win 89-91 that Hairston could provide an expected 89 win team is worth a hell of a lot more to a team than the value of win 75-77 well, that's exactly what i meant by marginal utility. maybe i used the wrong phrase or i didn't explain it right. But the wisdom of the decision is ALSO related to the team's budget, because, if we were spending in the $150m budget range, that means we would likely have bought some very good players and we would be less likely to be in the 75 win range and more likely to be in the 90 win range where Hairston's marginal utility becomes meaningful, as we both agree it would be in that situation.

Ashie62 Jan 17 2013 09:21 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

The reality may be that we see alot of Collin Cowgill...

Ceetar Jan 17 2013 09:26 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I think the two things work at counter-purposes though. Acquiring quality starting outfielders is probably the biggest way for the Mets to become 'good', and the better they plug that hole, the less they need the righty backup outfielder to play. Not 400 AB certainly, and probably not even 200. You could certainly overpay for that, but I certainly wouldn't do 2 years of overpaying. It's the 2 years thing that really gets me. If the extra $2-3 for one year isn't costing you anything, certainly take the best possible player for said position, but I wouldn't commit to it not being needing a year in advance. But I suspected that last year, that Hairston had outproduced his value, particularly to the Mets.

Ceetar Jan 17 2013 09:27 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Also, the Nationals were probably talking about Michael Morse much like we're talking about Cowgill and Brown right now. Marginally useful outfielders practically grown on trees which just means there are more often older guys that haven't gotten a fair shake yet that can make an impact.

TheOldMole Jan 17 2013 06:20 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Collin comes to play.

Ashie62 Jan 17 2013 08:43 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

And play he will per Alderson today. Sandy all but concedes Wheeler & D'Arnaud will start in AAA and that in general Sandy is not happy with where the team is today, especially in the OF... [url]http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/59933/alderson-not-happy-with-2013-prep

Nymr83 Jan 17 2013 09:25 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

And play he will per Alderson today. Sandy all but concedes Wheeler & D'Arnaud will start in AAA and that in general Sandy is not happy with where the team is today, especially in the OF... [url]http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/59933/alderson-not-happy-with-2013-prep Alderson toots his own horn a bit too, and seemingly rubs it in Toronto's face how well everyone thinks the Mets made out in the trade: Alderson wrote: Alderson offered an interesting tidbit on d’Arnaud. The GM said he wanted two prospects from an unspecified team (probably Texas) for R.A. Dickey. That team declined the request. Once d’Arnaud was acquired from the Jays, that team offered the same two players for the catching prospect straight up -- meaning the Mets could have had Noah Syndergaard and Wuilmer Becerra from Toronto plus the two other prospects for Dickey in all, if the Mets were willing to part with the newly acquired d’Arnaud. “Now at that point everybody had fallen in love with Travis, so we weren’t going to do that,” Alderson said.

Ashie62 Jan 17 2013 10:19 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Like he would never, right? Pleez

Edgy MD Jan 17 2013 10:38 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Who would never what? Please what?

Swan Swan H Jan 18 2013 07:01 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: Who would never what? Please what? ... please me. ... mister, please. Don't play B-17. ... come to Boston. ... release me. ... Mister Postman ... Hammer, don't hurt 'em.

Edgy MD Jan 18 2013 07:11 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

We should do a poll of the best "Please" songs.

Ashie62 Jan 18 2013 07:55 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders. Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 18 2013 07:58 AM

Edgy MD wrote: Who would never what? Please what? Alderson patting himself on the back and bragging about never trading D'Arnaud in a scenario that was presented to him. I thought you were tracing Algeria? Now hush little boy.

Edgy MD Jan 18 2013 07:58 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Do you mean ever or never? Are you saying that he wouldn't or that they would? Please what?

Edgy MD Jan 18 2013 08:02 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

What's with the "Little Boy" bullshit? I was just asking for clarity. It's part of a conversation. Please don't be unpleasant.

Ashie62 Jan 18 2013 08:27 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: Do you mean ever or never? Are you saying that he wouldn't or that they would? Please what? I am going to Smashburger today..Yippee!!

metirish Jan 18 2013 08:36 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Ashie62 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Do you mean ever or never? Are you saying that he wouldn't or that they would? Please what? I am going to Smashburger today..Yippee!! They opened up in Pelham.....pretty good although I liked Five Guys more....Smashbuger does have a better ambiance though.

Edgy MD Jan 22 2013 12:48 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Today in 1996, we were in the same boat, until today, January 22, when the St. Louis Cardinals sent outfielder Bernard Gilkey to the Mets in exchange for pitchers Eric Ludwick, Erik Hiljus and Yudith Orozio.

bmfc1 Jan 23 2013 08:52 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Scott Hairston to the Cubs. 2 year deal.

MFS62 Jan 23 2013 10:10 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

bmfc1 wrote: Scott Hairston to the Cubs. 2 year deal. This was a switch. They beamed Scotty up. Later

metirish Jan 24 2013 06:31 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

He will be a platoon outfielder?, at this price?? By Bruce Levine | ESPNChicago.com The Chicago Cubs have signed free agent outfielder Scott Hairston to a two-year contract worth up to $6 million, according to a source with knowledge of the negotiations. Hairston will fit into the Cubs' mix as a platoon corner outfielder. The other teams that had been talking to Hairston's agent, Casey Close, are the New York Mets, New York Yankees and Atlanta Braves, according to the source. The 32-year-old Hairston's deal includes incentive clauses that could increase the value to $6 million, pending a physical. Hairston played for the Mets in 2012, putting up his best power numbers. The outfielder had 48 extra-base hits, including a career-high 20 home runs, in just 377 at-bats. Hairston made $1.1 million last season before becoming a free agent for the first time in his career. He most likely will platoon with left-handed hitters Nate Schierholtz in right field and David DeJesus in center.

Lefty Specialist Jan 24 2013 07:47 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

So when are the open tryouts for outfielders being scheduled?

metsmarathon Jan 24 2013 08:21 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

isn't that what theyre doing down at fantasy camp?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 26 2013 12:15 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Dariel Alvarez, eh? Likely cheaper that Bourn, and he won't cost a draft pick, AND he's not considered an "international FA" signing (and is therefore exempt from signing-pool cost restrictions), you say? AND he's "24," and plays all three OF spots, you say? And you say he's Cuban... AND walks? You say... such interesting things.

Edgy MD Jan 26 2013 10:42 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Richard Justice of MLB.com wrote: The New York Mets have no interest in signing free-agent outfielder Michael Bourn if it means surrendering their top 2013 Draft pick, the 11th overall. He doesn't cite a source and also wonders out loud why the Mets would be interested under any circumstances. (Answer: he's an outfielder and the Mets believe they are weak in the outfield.) http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... b&c_id=mlb

Vic Sage Jan 26 2013 12:15 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

he's an outfielder and the Mets believe they are weak in the outfield. The Mets "believe" they are weak in the OF? Do you mean to imply that you don't think it's an objective reality; that it's only a matter of their belief? Or is my inference unwarranted and unintended?

Edgy MD Jan 26 2013 01:45 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be overly cute. He wonders why the Mets would be interested in signing the player, so I noted their perspective in particular.

Ashie62 Jan 26 2013 09:26 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Dariel Alvarez, eh? Likely cheaper that Bourn, and he won't cost a draft pick, AND he's not considered an "international FA" signing (and is therefore exempt from signing-pool cost restrictions), you say? AND he's "24," and plays all three OF spots, you say? And you say he's Cuban... AND walks? You say... such interesting things. Can he walk off the island?

MFS62 Jan 27 2013 01:35 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

FA Juan Rivera might be a decent right field platoon/option. He's 34, a righty hitter with some pop, and IIRC a decent RF arm. Later

Vic Sage Jan 28 2013 10:17 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

"I am in discussions with several outfielders. I met them on the Internet." —GM Sandy Alderson, at the Baseball Writers' Association of America's New York Chapter dinner.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2013 10:31 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

How'sabout Nolan Riemold? Hits when he's healthy, but knocked out last year by a herniated disc. The Orioles re-upped him for a $1 million dollar-one year contract, but they've sort of moved on during their run last year and have a crowded outfield in place. Could probably be had for a second tier prospect. Ahmed Rosario? Gabriel Ynoa? Cory Vaughn? Juan Lagares? Maybe it'd take two, but still. I feel a fraternity with our orange brethren, and Oriole players have always made a grain of sense to me in Mets uniforms and vice versa.

Ceetar Jan 28 2013 10:35 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: How'sabout Nolan Riemold? Hits when he's healthy, but knocked out last year by a herniated disc. The Orioles re-upped him for a $1 million dollar-one year contract, but they've sort of moved on during their run last year and have a crowded outfield in place. Could probably be had for a second tier prospect. Ahmed Rosario? Gabriel Ynoa? Cory Vaughn? Juan Lagares? Maybe it'd take two, but still. I feel a fraternity with our orange brethren, and Oriole players have always made a grain of sense to me in Mets uniforms and vice versa. doesn't seem to be a good fielder either, but looks to be able to hit. sign me up.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2013 10:46 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

You agree on what it would take to get him?

Ceetar Jan 28 2013 11:55 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: You agree on what it would take to get him? I have no idea. Trying to predict those things is tough, I mean the "experts" are frequently wrong even days leading up to big trades (things like, "He'll never get Wheeler for Beltran"). I do think there is a deal that works that the Mets have something the O's want and they would part with.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 28 2013 12:18 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders. Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2013 05:57 PM

He's a good if-he-stays-healthy bet... but I know that the Orioles-- especially in the wake of Reynolds' departure-- aren't exactly overflowing with right-handed power, so I don't know that he'd be an easy pry. [Plus, from the Irrelevant-but-Unsightly Department, you can't spell "Reimold" without a little bit of 'Rod.] The sub-.400 slugging Rivera (over the last three years)? That I could do without.

metirish Jan 28 2013 01:15 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Mike Puma ?@NYPost_Mets Latest on Michael Bourn negotiations: He wants at least five years, and Mets aren't willing to go there.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2013 01:34 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I don't think the Mets unwillingness to give 5 years is "latest" nor would Bourn's desire for such a deal be news either.

metirish Jan 28 2013 01:40 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I don't think the Mets unwillingness to give 5 years is "latest" nor would Bourn's desire for such a deal be news either. not at all like the Post to stretch things.......if he gets five years anywhere all the best to him.

smg58 Jan 28 2013 08:55 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Kyle Blanks. Calling him an injury risk would be understating things, but 20 homers in 420 ABs while playing home games in Petco screams upside, and it's not clear the Pads have room for him even if he's healthy. He's actually been a plus defensive outfielder, proving that converted first basemen aren't doomed to be hopeless. I bet he'd cut down on the Ks if he could just get regular at-bats, too. I'd offer Valdespin (the Padres were rumored to be looking for a lefthanded reserve infielder, plus Minaya likes him). He'd basically be a cheap lottery ticket, but that might be the direction the Mets need to go at this point.

Vic Sage Jan 28 2013 09:04 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

i love that idea. i had an eye on Blanks when he first was on his way up to SD, and had high hopes for him. He reminds me of Kevin Mitchell.

Ashie62 Jan 28 2013 09:19 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Have Reimold and Blanks to the Mets popped up on the interweb other than here?

MFS62 Jan 31 2013 09:07 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Just got the new Baseball Almanac. I noticed that Juan Lagares had 17 OF assists last year and has played all three OF positions in the minors. He was hurt at AA part of last year. I think a jump to AAA, playing in the hitter friendly PCL, he could get off to a fast start and might be up as at least a platoon player by mid year. Later

Edgy MD Jan 31 2013 09:18 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

He played in 130 of 142 games for Binghamton, so he couldn't have been hurt too bad.

MFS62 Jan 31 2013 09:54 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: He played in 130 of 142 games for Binghamton, so he couldn't have been hurt too bad. He got injured just after mid season. He was on the DL for a while then played through injury when he came back. In the final weeks, his average dropped about 20 points from where he was before the injury. (around .300) He had hit very well when he was promoted to AA the prior year, so I was following his progress pretty closely this year. I also noticed that when he hit 1 or 2 in the lineup (so he must have speed) he didn't do as well as when they batted him further down in the lineup. I think he's an option for an OF spot. Later

metirish Feb 01 2013 05:11 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Marlon Byrd signed to a minor league contract with an invite to Spring Training..... http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/ ... -contract/

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 01 2013 05:52 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

metirish wrote: Marlon Byrd signed to a minor league contract with an invite to Spring Training..... http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/ ... -contract/ Cool-- now Hawkins and Atchison have a third for Kingston Trio/Drifters songs at Duffy's Karaoke Night. Seriously... hell, it makes more sense than Bourn.

MFS62 Feb 01 2013 08:25 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

An experienced major league outfielder. A good pickup. Let's see what he has left in the tank. Later

TransMonk Feb 02 2013 01:23 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Jason Bay 2012 OPS: .536 Marlon Byrd 2012 OPS: .488 We still need outfielders.

Lefty Specialist Feb 02 2013 05:18 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I hate when they sign a guy and your first thought is, "Gee, I thought he retired."

Frayed Knot Feb 02 2013 06:09 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

We should make a poll on when Byrd gets suspended for PEDs

vtmet Feb 02 2013 08:10 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I hate when they sign a guy and your first thought is, "Gee, I thought he retired." speaking of which, I just noticed this one today...kind of surprised with the Mets need for some cheap RH'd power in the OF that the Mets got beat to the punch by the O's on this one: http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/ ... r-orioles/ Arthur Rhodes and Fernando Tatis audition for Orioles D.J. Short Jan 31, 2013, 10:18 PM EST 11 Comments According to Dan Connolly of the Baltimore Sun, the Orioles turned back the clock by holding workouts for left-hander Arthur Rhodes and infielder Fernando Tatis in recent days. And you thought the Orioles’ offseason has been boring. Rhodes didn’t pitch in the majors last season and had a 4.64 ERA and 21/11 K/BB ratio over 33 innings between the Rangers and Cardinals in 2011. The 43-year-old was originally drafted by the Orioles in the second round in 1988 and spent his first nine major league seasons with the club. He still lives in Baltimore. It’s been even longer since Tatis’ last stint in the majors, as the 38-year-old appeared in 41 games with the Mets in 2010 prior to undergoing surgery to repair a torn labrum in his shoulder. Best known as the only player to hit two grand slams in one inning, Tatis had a brief stint with the Orioles back in 2006. It wouldn’t cost more than a minor league deal to bring either player aboard, so it’s worth a shot. Who knows, maybe Tatis will be the 2013 version of Lew Ford.

Ceetar Feb 02 2013 08:39 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I don't think Rhodes has that much power.

Ashie62 Feb 02 2013 04:18 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

No love for Abreu as a one year caretaker?

Frayed Knot Feb 02 2013 04:37 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Ashie62 wrote: No love for Abreu as a one year caretaker? What they really need is a RH stick with good glove & range, preferably with the ability to play CF. Abreu can still get on base but otherwise fails on all three counts.

Ashie62 Feb 04 2013 09:17 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Marlon Byrd was an All Star in 2010, productive in 2011 and barely there in 2012. I like the signing...Frsh start for Marlon with no pressure on him..Howsa about 15-20 hr's with the big club.

Vic Sage Feb 05 2013 11:18 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

15-20 HRs? Byrd averaged about 8hr/400ab over his career, with most of that production coming in the launching pad of Texas, when he was a full-time player in his prime. At age 35, coming off injury, and coming to a pitchers park to platoon with 3 LHed OFers, you can't possibly expect or even reasonably hope for 15-20 HRs. I think the best case scenario for Byrd at CitiField is (assuming he makes the team and stays healthy) 350-400 ABs with .270 avg / 5-8 hr. If he's lucky.

metirish Feb 05 2013 11:30 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Lefty Specialist wrote: I hate when they sign a guy and your first thought is, "Gee, I thought he retired." this is unfortunately very funny.....

Edgy MD Feb 05 2013 12:11 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Vic Sage wrote: At age 35, coming off injury, and coming to a pitchers park to platoon with 3 LHed OFers... You left out that he's coming off a PED suspension.

Vic Sage Feb 05 2013 01:43 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Yeah, that too. He'll be competing with Colin Cowgill, Andrew Brown, Juan Lagares, and Matt VanDekker (so far) as the short end of an OF platoon. Whoever sucks least, and keeps our LH OFers from getting exposed, gets the job. I doubt its going to be Byrd, but he's worth taking a flyer on.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 05 2013 01:44 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I think Byrd is Bourn insurance.

Vic Sage Feb 05 2013 01:47 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

not the kind of insurance you burn down the factory to collect on, though.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 05 2013 01:59 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

No, not that kind. But I'm beginning to think Bourn will wind up on the Mets.

Vic Sage Feb 05 2013 02:09 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

there are worse things that could happen

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 05 2013 02:31 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Certainly. And it's pretty much what comes around, goes around scenario with these compensation picks. The Mets could remedy this pick loss sometime by letting one of their own walk. They can also be more aggressive with their international $$ if warranted. I mean, the whole thing is stupid and anticompetitive, but they agreed to it.

smg58 Jun 06 2013 12:06 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

smg58 wrote: Kyle Blanks. Calling him an injury risk would be understating things, but 20 homers in 420 ABs while playing home games in Petco screams upside, and it's not clear the Pads have room for him even if he's healthy. He's actually been a plus defensive outfielder, proving that converted first basemen aren't doomed to be hopeless. I bet he'd cut down on the Ks if he could just get regular at-bats, too. I'd offer Valdespin (the Padres were rumored to be looking for a lefthanded reserve infielder, plus Minaya likes him). He'd basically be a cheap lottery ticket, but that might be the direction the Mets need to go at this point. Blanks just got demoted with a .796 OPS. From the Mets' perspective, that's comical.

Edgy MD Jun 06 2013 12:17 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

He any good wit' the glove? (I had Virtual Blanks on my fake Mets teak last year in Out of the Park. He didn't stick, but I should know the answer to this.)

smg58 Jun 06 2013 12:49 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Fangraphs and Bill James have him as about average so far this year. He's been playing mostly right this year, too.

Vic Sage Jun 06 2013 01:55 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Vic Sage wrote: i love that idea. i had an eye on Blanks when he first was on his way up to SD, and had high hopes for him. He reminds me of Kevin Mitchell. still think so.

smg58 Jun 07 2013 11:56 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Blanks was spared the trip to AAA on account of Yonder Alonso's injury. Still, if he's their 26th guy (he was set to go down because Maybin was activated), I can't imagine he couldn't be had for a reasonable price.

Ceetar Jul 26 2013 02:22 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

[url]http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2013&month=3&season1=&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=6400,5384 Feel like Nieuwenhuis is getting short shrift. In a lot of ways he's been nearly as good as Lagares over the past month or so, and you worry about Lagares' BAbip (well, I do) in the sense that he doesn't walk, although he's been walking some, comparatively, recently. Juan's clearly the better defender, by eye at least, but Kirk's been doing a pretty good job too. Kirk shouldn't be sitting against righties. I know everyone hates Duda for some reason, particularly defensively, but if you've got the Juanenhuis platoon in center it covers some of that (Ankiel and Valdespin are not good defenders/rangy and I'm not sure Cowgill was either). Duda gets on base, hits the ball, etc. It really makes a case to trade Byrd and even maybe Young (if you believe this is more fluke than not) just to make room. Mike Baxter hitting in the minors too, and Andrew Brown hasn't been bad.

Frayed Knot Jul 26 2013 02:26 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Ceetar wrote: Feel like Nieuwenhuis is getting short shrift. He's not exactly earning a longer shrift.

Ceetar Jul 26 2013 02:31 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: Feel like Nieuwenhuis is getting short shrift. He's not exactly earning a longer shrift. He's not not either. Clearly Lagares is going to bolt ahead tonight, but Kirk hasn't really been bad the last month. same AB, walks almost twice as much as Lagares and strikes out less. And those things are more sustainable than the really high BABIP Lagares has. (neither's K rate is very good) Fangraphs has him at .1 WAR higher even over that stretch.

Edgy MD Jul 26 2013 02:41 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

The Mets have five outfielders, and four of them have had hot months. And the fifth --- Andrew Marshall Brown --- hasn't embarrassed himself. The idea that it's hard to find PT for everybody is a good problem to have. Ceets is right though. Nieuwie's gone .250 / .345 / .458 // .804 in 35 July trips, and launched the homer that started this hot streak. (#MetsCelebrateWins) That's good for a healthy shrift where I come from.

Nymr83 Jul 26 2013 05:23 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: The Mets have five outfielders, and four of them have had hot months. And the fifth --- Andrew Marshall Brown --- hasn't embarrassed himself. The idea that it's hard to find PT for everybody is a good problem to have. Ceets is right though. Nieuwie's gone .250 / .345 / .458 // .804 in 35 July trips, and launched the homer that started this hot streak. (#MetsCelebrateWins) That's good for a healthy shrift where I come from. When you're trying to win games this year thats a good problem to have. when you're hoping to find out which young players belong on the roster in the future it can be a hindrance.

Zvon Jul 26 2013 05:37 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Nymr83 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The Mets have five outfielders, and four of them have had hot months. And the fifth --- Andrew Marshall Brown --- hasn't embarrassed himself. The idea that it's hard to find PT for everybody is a good problem to have. Ceets is right though. Nieuwie's gone .250 / .345 / .458 // .804 in 35 July trips, and launched the homer that started this hot streak. (#MetsCelebrateWins) That's good for a healthy shrift where I come from. When you're trying to win games this year thats a good problem to have. when you're hoping to find out which young players belong on the roster in the future it can be a hindrance. And it will be while the Mets try to show they have a team that can win and draw fans while they also try to evaluate the kids. Like tonight, Satin playing. Its a righty and Ike had a good first game, yet Satin gets the start. If you were playing with just a W in mind wouldn't Ike be in there? But you do want to see what Josh can do against a righty. I imagine Collins will be mixing things up with an interesting balancing act. And the balance will be between drawing fans now and setting the team up for next season. As a lame duck skipper I don't envy his position.

Edgy MD Jul 26 2013 09:14 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I absolutely don't think winning this year and developing a team for the future are mutually exclusive. I also don't think there is ever any problem with getting four guys sufficient PT from three positions. Anyhow, Byrd might be gone in a few days. Seems like an emotional choice to declare Legares exclusive starter and now Nieuwenhuis has been farmed out when he was not only contributing, but had been the spark that got them started. We could have used him in game two. The idea that the team winning is a bad thing because they'll run the best lineup out there instead of the one that'll help them see what they have for next year, well, to adopt that wholeheartedly would seem dizzyingly unproductive.

Ashie62 Jul 27 2013 07:44 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Can't say I understood much of that...

Edgy MD Jul 27 2013 08:54 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Try harder.

smg58 Jul 28 2013 07:40 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: Seems like an emotional choice to declare Legares exclusive starter and now Nieuwenhuis has been farmed out when he was not only contributing, but had been the spark that got them started. We could have used him in game two. He hadn't had a hit since the 13th and Lagares had gotten relatively hot, so I'm OK with that aspect of it. I'm not sure that sacrificing a hitting spot for a sixth starter gives us anything, other than fewer starts by Harvey (which may or may not be a good thing).

Edgy MD Jul 29 2013 07:33 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

At least you understood. It's certainly costing us offense and defense, and has put Lagares in a position to flop. I went to game three at the Nationals Park and we had a four-man bench ---- Turner, Brown, Satin, and Gorgeous. That wasn't going to get it done.

bmfc1 Jul 29 2013 09:26 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy--not arguing, just asking... you wrote that the Mets have put Lagares "in a position to flop." Is that a bad thing? As the thread title states, the Mets need OFers so is it a bad thing to see if Lagares can fill that need? They've also put him in a position to shine--maybe he will win one of the jobs for '14.

Edgy MD Jul 29 2013 10:16 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I think a four-man outfield that overexposes guys who are still developing is a bad thing, both for the team in the short-term and developing players in the long-term. I don't think having a fifth outfielder means the team is no longer seeing if Lagares can fill a need. Lagares had been getting plenty of time as it was. There's always enough work for a fifth outfielder (and really, Nieuwenhuis was the fourth) without marginalizing any of the main actors, and a short bench, without a lefty, and particularly short on power is a bad thing.

bmfc1 Jul 29 2013 10:25 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Thanks for the reply. I'd rather see what Lagares can do full-time than protect him but I see your position.

Vic Sage Jul 29 2013 11:18 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: I think a four-man outfield that overexposes guys who are still developing is a bad thing, both for the team in the short-term and developing players in the long-term. I don't think having a fifth outfielder means the team is no longer seeing if Lagares can fill a need. Lagares had been getting plenty of time as it was. There's always enough work for a fifth outfielder (and really, Nieuwenhuis was the fourth) without marginalizing any of the main actors, and a short bench, without a lefty, and particularly short on power is a bad thing. This. I'd rather have Nieuenheis available than Atchison, for example.

bmfc1 Jul 29 2013 11:27 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I agree with that point Vic.... having a 5th OFer doesn't mean that you can't play Lagares full-time, of course. I'd much rather see a longer bench than bullpen.

Nymr83 Jul 29 2013 11:45 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Right now I'd want to start Lagares/Young/Byrd on most days, but you can work Niewenhuis in there a little and save Brown for "we need a homer" PH duties as the 5th guy. Unless the Mets want to callup den Dekker or another guy from the minors to see what he can do. There is really no good reason for Kirk not to be on this team right now.

bmfc1 Jul 29 2013 12:19 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Jason Bay is available... the Mariners DFA'd him today.

smg58 Jul 29 2013 04:32 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: At least you understood. It's certainly costing us offense and defense, and has put Lagares in a position to flop. I went to game three at the Nationals Park and we had a four-man bench ---- Turner, Brown, Satin, and Gorgeous. That wasn't going to get it done. In hindsight, the guy it most put in a position to flop was Carlos Torres. But I do think the four-man, lefty-free bench is untenable.

Ashie62 Jul 29 2013 04:53 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

We keep tooo many and use tooo many relievers...

Ceetar Jul 29 2013 05:39 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

smg58 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: At least you understood. It's certainly costing us offense and defense, and has put Lagares in a position to flop. I went to game three at the Nationals Park and we had a four-man bench ---- Turner, Brown, Satin, and Gorgeous. That wasn't going to get it done. In hindsight, the guy it most put in a position to flop was Carlos Torres. But I do think the four-man, lefty-free bench is untenable. Turner hits righties better than lefties, but I'm not positive Collins knows that. Satin doesn't really have splits either.

Nymr83 Jul 29 2013 05:50 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Ashie62 wrote: We keep tooo many and use tooo many relievers... thats another thing. just STOP using 3 relievers to get through an inning.

Edgy MD Jul 29 2013 05:51 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I'm not particularly impressed by Turner's capacity in this regard.

Ceetar Jul 29 2013 06:09 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not particularly impressed by Turner's capacity in this regard. It's better than say..Valdespin.

Edgy MD Jul 29 2013 06:24 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I think we're far off-topic there. Firstly, to the extent that that's true, big whoop. It's a marginal difference. Secondly, we're talking outfielders, among which Turner is far less a passable actor. Thirdly, the person we're talking about getting farmed out is Nieuwenhuis, about whom this is not true. He's been the superior hitter against righties and will for the rest of life be the superior outfielder. Fourthly and finally, the shortness of the bench as a whole is under discussion. Better than Turner or Valdespin (if Valdespin must be brought into the discussion) is Turner and Valdespin.

Ceetar Jul 29 2013 06:29 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

well yeah, I think I've made clear I don't think Kirk should've been sent down. But not for 'depth of bench' reasons. Can't bring him back for another 7-8 days without an injury right? so who, if we're looking to expand the bench with a lefty, do you go to? you're going to be adding Duda after not too much longer too, so that's another lefty in the mix overall.

Nymr83 Jul 29 2013 07:50 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Thats another part of the OF discussion... who sits when Duda gets back? does Duda not play nearly full-time?

Ceetar Jul 29 2013 07:55 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Nymr83 wrote: Thats another part of the OF discussion... who sits when Duda gets back? does Duda not play nearly full-time? Well, let's see who, if anyone, gets traded. Young probably with Eric subbing in for Byrd occasionally.

Frayed Knot Jul 29 2013 08:00 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Nymr83 wrote: Thats another part of the OF discussion... who sits when Duda gets back? does Duda not play nearly full-time? Yeah, but not necessarily in the OF

Zvon Jul 29 2013 08:08 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Frayed Knot wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Thats another part of the OF discussion... who sits when Duda gets back? does Duda not play nearly full-time? Yeah, but not necessarily in the OF I do not want to see Duda in the outfield even if they trade both Young and Byrd. I would have to stop watching. For my health.

smg58 Jul 29 2013 08:51 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I could see a semi-platoon between Duda and Lagares, where the decision on who plays depends as much on whether our pitcher gives up more grounders than fly balls as on whether their pitcher is righty or lefty. I'd be reluctant to bench Young; he's not Reyes by a longshot, but he looks like Reyes compared to anybody else the Mets have led off with the last two years.

bmfc1 Jul 31 2013 04:15 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Sandy disagrees with the title to this thread. He said this today: We've taken what seemed to be a fairly barren outfield at the beginning of the season and turned it over the last month into maybe the most productive outfield in baseball.

metirish Jul 31 2013 05:07 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Really?, wow, Byrd is the only one that can hit home runs.... Not much power out there.

SteveJRogers Jul 31 2013 05:09 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

bmfc1 wrote: Sandy disagrees with the title to this thread. He said this today: We've taken what seemed to be a fairly barren outfield at the beginning of the season and turned it over the last month into maybe the most productive outfield in baseball. Sounds like Sandy wants to have a set on the next lineup you have a gig for!

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 31 2013 05:11 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

It's not Rice-Lynn-Evans but it ain't a bad outfield. Young does his thing on the bases and at leadoff, Lagares can really pick it and is OPS+ing at 102 as a rookie, and Byrd is one of the most productive hitters in the league. They all catch the ball.

metirish Jul 31 2013 05:15 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

After reading what he says I'd not be surprised if Byrd was back next season. I like what Young has done and Lagares has good tools.

Zvon Jul 31 2013 05:22 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: It's not Rice-Lynn-Evans but it ain't a bad outfield. Young does his thing on the bases and at leadoff, Lagares can really pick it and is OPS+ing at 102 as a rookie, and Byrd is one of the most productive hitters in the league. They all catch the ball. Byrds fielding in right has been much better than I expected. With the glove as well as the arm. I consider him above average out there this season. smg58: are you saying Duda plays center in that semi-platoon? Or does Young go to center there and Duds in left? Don't make me even imagine Duda playing center.

bmfc1 Jul 31 2013 05:23 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

SteveJRogers wrote: Sandy disagrees with the title to this thread. He said this today: We've taken what seemed to be a fairly barren outfield at the beginning of the season and turned it over the last month into maybe the most productive outfield in baseball. Sounds like Sandy wants to have a set on the next lineup you have a gig for! Steve, he can open for me.

Ceetar Jul 31 2013 06:14 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Sure it is Sandy, sure it is. For the last month, sure. Lot more on the road to a World Series than July 2013.

MFS62 Jul 31 2013 09:41 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: It's not Rice-Lynn-Evans but it ain't a bad outfield. Young does his thing on the bases and at leadoff, Lagares can really pick it and is OPS+ing at 102 as a rookie, and Byrd is one of the most productive hitters in the league. They all catch the ball. I was ready to ask Sandy to pee into a bottle, but JCL has a point. I would prefer a little more power, but it is a pretty good defensive outfield. Later

metsmarathon Aug 01 2013 07:36 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

young/lagares/byrd/duda is a hell of a lot better than whatever the hell it was that bobby vee was rolling out every day in '99 and '00. for whatever much comparative value that is worth.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2013 07:42 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I think we can romanticize the Vee era a bit. His outfield included some spare parts, but so does this 'un. Old Ricky Henderson and Young Roger Cedeno and Finally Healthy Jay Payton were real players. Darryl Hamilton, when not hobbled, had skillz any team would want.

Vic Sage Aug 01 2013 08:16 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

don't forget Benny the Jet Abayani, who was a gosh darn good hitter, and brian McRae, too, had 1 or 2 good years for us in that period. In fact, i'd venture a guess that the aggregate OPS of the 99-00 Mets outfielders (Henderson-Cedeno-Agbyani-Payton-McRae-Bell) was superior to that of our current aggregation of castoffs, has-beens, and kids.

metsmarathon Aug 01 2013 08:56 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

well, of course the 99-00 outfield had higher OPSes. that was a vastly different run environment. juan lagares has an OPS+ of 100 this year. in 2000, jay payton had an OPS+ of 98. juan lagares has an OPS of 0.712 this year. in 2000, jay payton had an OPS of 0.778. but if we use OPS+ as the measuring stick, then we see that the 2013 outfield isn't all that bad, relatively speaking. the 2013 outifled of duda / lagares / byrd / young has OPS+es of 123 / 100 / 134 / 106 (valdespin 56 retch!) the 2000 outfield of agbayani / payton / bell / hamilton had OPS+es of 122 / 98 / 98 / 86 (nunnally 81 trammel 91 perez 104) the 1999 outfield of henderson / mcrae / cedeno / agbayani had OPS+es of 128 / 72 / 107 / 125 (hamilton 130) looking at the top 4 outfielders from each team, we compare favorably. in fact, the average OPS+ from our current top four is higher than 99 or 2000. only in adding in jordanny valdespin's poison pill do we start to fall behind '99. still ahead of 2000 though. i'm not about to claim that our outfield is great shakes. and certainly this offers no estimation of the defensive value put forth by this group, but it ain't all bad, especially if you limit your focus to the current group that's playing nearly every day out there. improbable as it may seem.

Nymr83 Aug 01 2013 08:56 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Vic Sage wrote: don't forget Benny the Jet Abayani, who was a gosh darn good hitter, and brian McRae, too, had 1 or 2 good years for us in that period. In fact, i'd venture a guess that the aggregate OPS of the 99-00 Mets outfielders (Henderson-Cedeno-Agbyani-Payton-McRae-Bell) was superior to that of our current aggregation of castoffs, has-beens, and kids. 1999 Mets OPS+ in the outfield - Henderson 128, Cedeno 107, McCrae 72 also Agbayani 125, Hamilton 130, Bonilla 49, Dunston 100, Allensworth 74 2000 Mets OPS+ in the outfield - Agbayani 122, Payton 98, Bell 98 also Henderson 64, Hamilton 86, Nunnally 81, Trammell 81 There are also going to be guys like Joe McEwing and Lenny Harris that may have had some outfield starts contributing to the overall numbers but i tried to only list individuals that i remember as normally being outfielders when they played. 2013 Mets OPS+ in the outfield - Duda 123, Lagares 100, Byrd 134 also Young 106, Niewenhuis 74, Valdespin 59, Baxter 77, Ankiel 68, Brown 89 We are pretty clearly doing better than 2000 and probably right around where 1999 was

Ceetar Aug 01 2013 09:04 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

We're also kind of measuring at a high point now though. Especially for Byrd and Lagares. Maybe they keep it up, which would certainly be nice, but a lot of it's bolstered on recent events.

Vic Sage Aug 01 2013 09:19 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

This shows me (and thanks for doing the legwork) that the current OF is somewhere in close range of the 99-00 teams; slightly better than 2000 and slightly worse (or even) to 1999, depending on which numbers you use and how many OFers on each time you include. But i'll concede is probably slightly better overall, which, to put it in perspective, suggests that this OF is at least comparable to the OF that was considered the reason why those 99-00 playoff teams never make it over the hump, and is an OF generally criticized as being the anchor that dragged those good teams down. I hardly think the comparison to that OF is a ringing endorsement for this crew such that they are worthy of huzzahs from Sandy. Is this OF better than i thought they'd be? Sure, i didn't guess Byrd could have a career year at 35 (with a SLG 100 pts higher than his career numbers), or that we'd pick up EYoung mid-season for relatively cheap, or that Legares was ready to make a jump from AA. But even with all those nice surprises, they have not distinguished themselves as exceptional, but merely adequate, particularly when you consider all the unsuccessful ABs given to Valdy, Nieuenheis, Baxter, Ankiel, and Cowgill, not to mention Duda's adventures in LF. Most productive OF in baseball, Sandy? Just you keep selling that snake oil, fella.

metsmarathon Aug 01 2013 09:53 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

well, maybe he means productive relative to what it's getting paid...? uh.. yeah.. i got nothing.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2013 10:02 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Timeframe means everything.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 01 2013 10:24 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders. Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Aug 01 2013 10:35 AM

Vic Sage wrote: This shows me (and thanks for doing the legwork) that the current OF is somewhere in close range of the 99-00 teams; slightly better than 2000 and slightly worse (or even) to 1999, depending on which numbers you use and how many OFers on each time you include. But i'll concede is probably slightly better overall, which, to put it in perspective, suggests that this OF is at least comparable to the OF that was considered the reason why those 99-00 playoff teams never make it over the hump, and is an OF generally criticized as being the anchor that dragged those good teams down. I hardly think the comparison to that OF is a ringing endorsement for this crew such that they are worthy of huzzahs from Sandy. I agree. I'm still scratching my head over the accolades suddenly being sent the way of this outfield. I'm supposed to be thrilled because what? --they field better than Duda? You could carry this outfield if these Mets had a catcher that hit like Mike Piazza, a first baseman that hit like John Olerud and a second baseman that hit like Edgardo Alfonzo. But we ain't got anything close to that and these Mets ain't going anywhere this season. So the issue that really matters is how this outfield is likely to do going forward. I'm not sold on Lagares: are you? And as for Byrd, kudos to him but I wouldn't bet anything on a 2014 repeat of what Byrd's done so far as a Met. Nor would I expect it. If the Mets think they're set at outfield, then they're gonna need for the pitching staff to morph into Seaver, Koosman and Matlack, with a Stone-like career year from their 4th starter to contend in 2014.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 01 2013 10:27 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

He clearly said (and meant) over the last month.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 01 2013 10:31 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: He clearly said (and meant) over the last month. OK. So then what's the point? That the Mets had a good July?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 01 2013 10:32 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I didn't bring up the point.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 01 2013 10:34 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I didn't bring up the point. I know. I was just asking.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2013 10:40 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

So the issue that really matters is how this outfield is likely to do going forward. I think the issue that really matters is finding a firstbaseman who hits like Jon Olerud. Or Rico Brogna. Or Dave Magadan. Sold or not on Lagares, he has centerfield a lot more nailed down than anybody has first. The defense isn't merely better than Duda, it's been pretty exceptional with him out there, despite Byrd's belly and Young's propensity to play no-doubles defense 24-7. Whatever you think of our outfield, the positions most hurting the team day after day seem to me to be first, shortstop, and catcher. Current standings by position represent the season and not where the team is now (thus, a still-low rating in center), but they're meaningful pictures I think, even if they represent offense only. [list]Third Base: First out of 15 Teams in OPS. Second Base: Seventh out of 15 Teams in OPS. Left Field: Seventh out of 15 Teams in OPS. Right Field: 8th out of 15 Teams in OPS. Catcher: 10th out of 15 Teams in OPS. Center Field: 12th out of 15 Teams in OPS. First Base: 13th out of 15 Teams in OPS. Shortstop: 15th out of 15 Teams in OPS.[/list:u] Funny to see the deadlastness of shortstop. Unlike first and center and even catcher, we haven't had a period of outright crisis there in 2013, just steady bland badness.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 01 2013 10:43 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I'm always shocked to see there's any teams with less productive first basemen. How can that be?

Edgy MD Aug 01 2013 10:46 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Every few weeks I'm tempted to investigate again. I'm like, "Surely there can't still be teams getting less production at fir... HOLY PETE! MAMIE, WOULD YOU COME LOOK AT THIS!!!"

batmagadanleadoff Aug 01 2013 10:46 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

So the issue that really matters is how this outfield is likely to do going forward. I think the issue that really matters is finding a firstbaseman who hits like Jon Olerud. Or Rico Brogna. Or Dave Magadan. Sold or not on Lagares, he has centerfield a lot more nailed down than anybody has first. The defense isn't merely better than Duda, it's been pretty exceptional with him out there, despite Byrd's belly and Young's propensity to play no-doubles defense 24-7. Whatever you think of our outfield, the positions most hurting the team day after day seem to me to be first, shortstop, and catcher. Current standings by position represent the season and not where the team is now (thus, a still-low rating in center), but they're meaningful pictures I think, even if they represent offense only. [list]Third Base: First out of 15 Teams in OPS. Second Base: Seventh out of 15 Teams in OPS. Left Field: Seventh out of 15 Teams in OPS. Right Field: 8th out of 15 Teams in OPS. Catcher: 10th out of 15 Teams in OPS. Center Field: 12th out of 15 Teams in OPS. First Base: 13th out of 15 Teams in OPS. Shortstop: 15th out of 15 Teams in OPS.[/list:u] Funny to see the deadlastness of shortstop. Unlike first and center and even catcher, we haven't had a period of outright crisis there in 2013, just steady bland badness. So outside of David Wright, the Mets are, at best, league average at every other position, and just as likely, at the bottom, among the worst. That, obviously, includes the outfield.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2013 10:48 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

The two sucker teams are Miami and Milwaukee, two teams that are currently watching firstbasemen they produced smack out Hall-of-Fame careers (although Miggy is back at third). The top production at first belongs to Arizona, a team that, as recently as this spring, had a first basemen who was actually in a tossup with Ike over who was more worthy of an invite to the WBC.

metsmarathon Aug 01 2013 10:49 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

maybe slightly better than league average, as our home park seems to tamp down on offense a tad bit.

Ceetar Aug 01 2013 10:50 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm always shocked to see there's any teams with less productive first basemen. How can that be? Satin had a good two weeks and Davis just had a good two weeks, so that adds up to keep them from awful.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2013 10:54 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

So outside of David Wright, the Mets are, at best, league average at every other position, and just as likely, at the bottom, among the worst. That, obviously, includes the outfield. I got nothing against middle-of-the-pack production, and am either happy to get it when it's from a young player who perhaps has something to offer on defense and maybe a spike or two in his future. What's objectionable are the positions on the ass-end, and how they offset the hard-won victories of high-end talent like Wright and Harvey. I hope you get the broader point.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 01 2013 11:28 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: So outside of David Wright, the Mets are, at best, league average at every other position, and just as likely, at the bottom, among the worst. That, obviously, includes the outfield. I got nothing against middle-of-the-pack production, and am either happy to get it when it's from a young player who perhaps has something to offer on defense and maybe a spike or two in his future. What's objectionable are the positions on the ass-end, and how they offset the hard-won victories of high-end talent like Wright and Harvey. I hope you get the broader point. Get it? I can't agree or disagree because I don't even what it is. That the Mets had a good July? That we're set at outfield even though it's anchored by a right fielder who turns 36 this month and until this season, hasn't had a good campaign since the Bush administration?

Edgy MD Aug 01 2013 11:57 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

I didn't speak to you agreeing. I merely hoped you got it. Apparently not.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 01 2013 12:04 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: I didn't speak to you agreeing. I merely hoped you got it. Apparently not. Apparently not. I cant agree or disagree if I don't even know what I might want to agree or disagree with. You can go back now to guard duty over the point of this conversation, which is apparently sealed inside of a mayonnaise jar inside of an Egyptian tomb, circled by evil spirits and buried 300 feet deep in somebody's backyard.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2013 12:54 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Yes, I read that last time. This is getting redundant. I did not ask if you agreed or disagreed. Communication is breaking down. Can the banks be far behind? My point had been that the outfield prospects for the present and future had improved while other concerns lagged behind.

Ashie62 Aug 01 2013 06:20 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Moreso when his body fills out Juan Lagares reminds me of a young Cesar Cedeno...In other words....Lagares my the the goods...

batmagadanleadoff Aug 02 2013 10:24 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Did I tell you that there's $320M worth of Sterling-Wilpon debt due soon? Because I'll tell you again in case you didn't remember it the first 682 times I wrote it. Check out the bold, italicized text. You think Megdal reads this forum? We already noted that the Mets are league average at best at every position but 3B and that who cares what the outfield did last month: it's what they might do going forward that matters. Another year in shackles for the Mets general manager By Howard Megdal Sandy Alderson. SNY The July 31, 4 p.m. non-waiver trade deadline for Major League Baseball came and went, with a familiar result for the Mets: the buzz about potentially adding talent yielded nothing at all. This result will have an impact on the team's 2014 fortunes, and on the possibility that the astute front office team, led by Sandy Alderson, remains in place. Way back on May 27, Alderson talked up the possibility that the Mets would add talent in the summer period of baseball activity, with a Mets source pointing out, rightly, that "it’s hard to build an entire outfield in one offseason.” A few weeks later, on June 15, Alderson said this: "I do believe that over the next six months or so we will be in position to make some significant acquisitions, whether it's through free agency or trade. We're certainly looking forward to that possibility." Taking Alderson at his word, that means most of those six months, June 15-December 15, are now up. The Mets didn't add anyone through July 31, and the difficulty of getting a high-performing player through waivers takes us through the end of the season, then the playoffs, which run until the end of October. It'll be November before activity can resume, and Alderson will have one offseason to build what the Mets had feared was impossible to build in that time, an outfield. And that's something worth remembering: a talented front office, with a real, static budget at its disposal, can't just will a championship team into being. It's hard under the best of circumstances, when you don't have to fight internal battles just to make marginal upgrades. The Mets, to add payroll this winter, need to not only outbid 29 other teams for their preferred players, but do so while ownership somehow convinces JPMorgan Chase to defer a $320 million loan due against the team, and at the same time, let new spending on the team jump ahead of it in the credit line. So it's no wonder Alderson and his crew are getting tired of this game. The outfield isn't the only area in need of building. There's shortstop, where Ruben Tejada is marooned in Triple-A until, apparently, September. (Omar Quintanilla is not a long-term answer for them at the position.) Nor does it address first base, where Ike Davis, after returning from Las Vegas, is slugging a meager .322 in his first 73 plate appearances. But about that outfield, which Alderson was only recently telling fatalistic jokes about. "We've taken what seemed to be a fairly barren outfield at the beginning of the season and turned it over the last month into maybe the most productive outfield in baseball," Alderson said by way of explaining his inactivity on Wednesday. "So some positive things have happened. And we want to let that play out." Now look: the outfield has been better. But "maybe the most productive outfield in baseball?" Primary left fielder Eric Young Jr. and now-primary center fielder Juan Lagares have clearly been much better than what they replaced, and have been vital to the team's recent respectable form, and are at even league average O.P.S. at their positions in the National League this season. But unless we are using Lake Wobegon math, that's not the most productive outfield in baseball. Moreover, the concern isn't so much how they performed over the last month, but what it means heading into 2014. Alderson is much too smart to believe Eric Young, the 28-year-old with the 77 O.P.S.+ and below-average fielding, is as good as it gets. The approach-conscious Alderson and his staff will also be well aware that Lagares' solid output, more than sufficient given his elite fielding in center field, has come despite just five unintentional walks in his first 195 plate appearances, and a likely unsustainable .358 batting average on balls in play (.476 over these supposedly transformative last 28 days). The backup plan, if and when they cool off, are the same outfield options as before. Right field, meanwhile, was a major storyline of deadline day. The Mets have come a long way from Alderson's January interview, when he struggled, with good reason, to name which if his castoffs would start at the position. Now, the Mets have Marlon Byrd in right, and Byrd has been terrific for the Mets, second only to David Wright with a 133 O.P.S.+, leading the team in home runs and R.B.I. Still, Byrd is 35, and he's never before approached that level of production, even in what are typically a player's prime years. He's a free agent after the season, leaving the Mets with the unenviable options of offering him a qualifying offer expected to be more than $13 million for 2014, hoping he's found a new level of talent at this point in his career, or at least getting a draft pick as compensation if Byrd turned that offer down and signed elsewhere. (Reality: he almost certainly wouldn't.) Alternatively, they'll lose him for nothing. Even if you accept that keeping Byrd will improve attendance or provide the Mets with slightly more 2013 revenue, it would seem to be precisely within the purview of Jeff Wilpon's declaration last month that ownership was "ready to invest" to take that minor revenue hit to add to the 2014 talent base. But despite teams offering the Mets what Joel Sherman labeled interested teams' 10th-to-15th-best prospects, the Mets elected to hold on to Byrd, a player who gives them no on-field value after the next 57 games. A cursory glance at some 2010 Baseball America prospect lists yielded players within that range like Nolan Arenado of the Rockies, who forced his way to the major leagues earlier this year and is starting at third base, and Jason Kipnis of the Indians, who the Mets recently saw at Citi Field, in the All-Star Game. Sure, there were prospects in that range who missed, which is the nature of prospects. But when the best position player prospects the Mets have at or above Double-A are catcher Travis d'Arnaud, who missed much of the season with a broken foot, Wilmer Flores, a natural third baseman blocked by David Wright, and Cesar Puello, who looks likely to be suspended in the Biogenesis probe any minute now, adding some decent position prospects to come up with some answers at positions of need seems like more of an imperative than a luxury, cast aside for a slightly better 2013 finish. (At least it appears d'Arnaud, now back playing for Double-A Binghamton, may get the chance to play in New York, and show what he can do, as soon as John Buck's wife goes into labor.) And naturally, had the Mets really been concerned about being competitive in 2013, they could have spent more than $5 million, total, on a pair of major league free agents at the very end of last offseason. That was a critical offseason, too, according to Alderson, who expressed the need last August to add "an infusion of players, productive players," and then, constrained by ownership's financial bind, did nothing of the sort. The owners, of course, explained that that only happened because Alderson has chosen not to spend money to improve the team, which isn't something Mets decision-makers privately even pretend is true. That moment when last offseason went from one about preaching patience to a missed opportunity happened in the blink of an eye, if you followed the official line. So did this summer window. And so more time goes by, the Mets hiding behind some plausible deniability (sure, had they been at liberty to add significantly to payroll, trades for productive hitters aren't so easy to negotiate anyhow), and some not-so-plausible ("maybe the most productive outfield in baseball," or Fred Wilpon saying, to the puzzlement and anger of Alderson's camp, that "we haven't turned him down on anything"). We're 16 months out from Wilpon and his partners settling the litigation against them brought by the trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims, a settlement brought because the trustee determined, after a full examination of Wilpon's finances, that he and his partners were circling the drain financially, and couldn't pay the trustee even the pre-trial award of $83.3 million. That supposedly freeing moment has led to more of the same. Alderson has been steadily stockpiling pitching prospects and rebuilding the farm system, but without the ability to supplement by adding major league talent, his task of making the Mets into major-league contenders is an enormously difficult one. Back in the heady days of June, when the public statements of Mets management made it sound like a big-ticket acquisition, or even, you know, an acquisition of any kind was imminent, Alderson, who is only signed through 2014, said this to Newsday's David Lennon: "Was 2014 always a target year? Yeah," Alderson said. "It should be an important year for us." He surely meant it. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... featured-2

Nymr83 Aug 02 2013 11:05 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

theres plenty to be pessimistic about with thew Mets, but I don't think Juan Lagares is on of those things. Yeah he doesnt walkmuch and yeah the BABIP is unsustainable, but I think the defense and doubles power are enough to make him an average regular in center next year.

Ashie62 Aug 02 2013 01:09 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Medgal actually makes enough money to live by getting people to read his rants?

Ceetar Aug 02 2013 01:15 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Nymr83 wrote: theres plenty to be pessimistic about with thew Mets, but I don't think Juan Lagares is on of those things. Yeah he doesnt walkmuch and yeah the BABIP is unsustainable, but I think the defense and doubles power are enough to make him an average regular in center next year. Yeah, it's gone on a little too long for me to doubt now. I was skeptical because of the unsustainable stuff, but he's even walking a little bit more, maybe that's a fluke, maybe not, but really if he can play CF like that and maintain a 90-100 OPS type game? I'll take it. Hard to find that and you can plug any better hitting OFers you find into one of the corners easy enough. I should (illegally?) splice Josh Lewin's call of his triple yesterday out of the audio. Great call.

Edgy MD Aug 02 2013 01:18 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or other use of the pictures and accounts of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited. Ceetar is an anarchist.

Ceetar Aug 02 2013 01:33 PM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or other use of the pictures and accounts of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited. Ceetar is an anarchist. Pretty much. I know I posted a funny Howie Rose "Change at Jamaica" joke on a foul pop-up on my blog a couple of years ago. They don't notice the small fish. I mean, this stuff just vanishes into Ether on the off chance they want to highlight something. But it's good stuff and why shouldn't we enjoy and share it? So yeah, if you want to hear Josh Lewin's call of Juan Lagares' triple yesterday, here: [url]https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4Jy95v3sUH8VHNVOXhCRy13Qlk/edit?usp=sharing (fixed to hopefully allow sharing now) The Howie Rose joke, apparently back when I still thought Wayne Hagin was decent. Also, I shouldn't have hot-linked Howie's picture from CBS I guess. [url]http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2010/07/03/howies-lirr-joke/

Edgy MD Aug 03 2013 10:50 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Megdal wrote: Way back on May 27, Alderson talked up the possibility that the Mets would add talent in the summer period of baseball activity, with a Mets source pointing out, rightly, that "it’s hard to build an entire outfield in one offseason.” A few weeks later, on June 15, Alderson said this: "I do believe that over the next six months or so we will be in position to make some significant acquisitions, whether it's through free agency or trade. We're certainly looking forward to that possibility." Taking Alderson at his word, that means most of those six months, June 15-December 15, are now up. Only somebody incapable of doing math, somebody incapable of hearing anything but perceived insults, or somebody committed to maintiaining his fantasy of running the team would argue as such. But about that outfield, which Alderson was only recently telling fatalistic jokes about. "We've taken what seemed to be a fairly barren outfield at the beginning of the season and turned it over the last month into maybe the most productive outfield in baseball," Alderson said by way of explaining his inactivity on Wednesday. "So some positive things have happened. And we want to let that play out." Why does anybody need to be insulted to the point where they deliberately pretend to think that he's talking about anything but July?

Ceetar Aug 03 2013 11:00 AM Re: We. Still. Need. Outfielders.

Edgy MD wrote: Way back on May 27, Alderson talked up the possibility that the Mets would add talent in the summer period of baseball activity, with a Mets source pointing out, rightly, that "it’s hard to build an entire outfield in one offseason.” A few weeks later, on June 15, Alderson said this: "I do believe that over the next six months or so we will be in position to make some significant acquisitions, whether it's through free agency or trade. We're certainly looking forward to that possibility." Taking Alderson at his word, that means most of those six months, June 15-December 15, are now up. Only somebody incapable of doing math, somebody incapable of hearing anything but perceived insults, or somebody committed to maintiaining his fantasy of running the team would argue as such. But about that outfield, which Alderson was only recently telling fatalistic jokes about. "We've taken what seemed to be a fairly barren outfield at the beginning of the season and turned it over the last month into maybe the most productive outfield in baseball," Alderson said by way of explaining his inactivity on Wednesday. "So some positive things have happened. And we want to let that play out." Why does anybody need to be insulted to the point where they deliberately pretend to think that he's talking about anything but July? It's like the simplest of things and more candid than most GM-speak. He's seen signs of good things from guys (2 of which he DID bring in here) that are playing, and feels it's worth continuing to give them chances. That's it. He hasn't wrote any of their names into the starting lineup for 2014 yet..