Master Index of Archived Threads


d'Arnoutfield

Edgy MD Aug 28 2014 08:31 PM

Didn't see this coming. Not sure Travis did either. If it's totally not an option that's being discussed, why are you discussing it, Terry? Addy Rubey wrote: NEW YORK -- Terry Collins told the Daily News that team brass has had informal conversations about moving Travis d'Arnaud to left field, although the manager noted that it was just casual conversation and not some plan. The aim would be to keep d’Arnaud healthy and avoiding concussions while keeping his bat in the lineup. “But as of right now we haven’t even approached [left field] as an option, because it would have to be go to the instructional league,” Collins told the newspaper.

Ceetar Aug 29 2014 08:28 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

Edgy MD wrote: Didn't see this coming. Not sure Travis did either. If it's totally not an option that's being discussed, why are you discussing it, Terry? Addy Rubey wrote: NEW YORK -- Terry Collins told the Daily News that team brass has had informal conversations about moving Travis d'Arnaud to left field, although the manager noted that it was just casual conversation and not some plan. The aim would be to keep d’Arnaud healthy and avoiding concussions while keeping his bat in the lineup. “But as of right now we haven’t even approached [left field] as an option, because it would have to be go to the instructional league,” Collins told the newspaper. I don't know why Collins is opening his mouth, but sure, have a conversation about the best way to maximize assets and health, I'm all for that.

Farmer Ted Aug 29 2014 09:14 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

Hi Travis, this is my good friend, Todd Hundley. The two of you should talk.

smg58 Aug 29 2014 09:18 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

I just hope Terry spoke with d'Arnaud before speaking with the media. Otherwise, with Plawecki knocking on the door, it's worth discussing how to accommodate the both of them.

Ceetar Aug 29 2014 09:52 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

smg58 wrote: I just hope Terry spoke with d'Arnaud before speaking with the media. Otherwise, with Plawecki knocking on the door, it's worth discussing how to accommodate the both of them. Here's a thought though. I like d'Arnaud and think he's gonna be good. If Plawecki really does look good and promising, are the Mets better served trying to adjust the defense to get them both in there w/ LF time or whatever, or selling at the height of Plawecki's prospect value for an actual left fielder?

Ceetar Aug 29 2014 09:57 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

Speaking of Plawecki, what's the first thing you do after getting drafted and showing up at Citi Field? why, talk to the Captain of course.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 29 2014 10:15 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

CBS New York wrote: “We’ve just talked about it as a coaching staff,” Collins said, according to the Daily News. “If (Plawecki) is as good as they tell me he is … And you don’t want to have both of them (catching), because somebody doesn’t get enough playing time. But as of right now we haven’t even approached (left field) as an option, because it would have to be going to the instructional league, get to (Port St. Lucie) in January and start the process.” But Collins certainly believes that his catcher could get the job done in the outfield. “He’s got some things that could play out there,” the skipper said. “He runs good enough. He throws good enough.” I'm less than thrilled about this possibility. I think a good part of Travis' appeal is how well he hits as a catcher. I would guess that his offense ranks higher among catchers than it does among left fielders.

Frayed Knot Aug 29 2014 10:28 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

But if Plawecki does force the issue (a mighty big IF still) it's worth knowing, unlike the situation we ran into with Hundley & Piazza, and then again when Piazza hit his old age, if there are options available. Part of this is on d'Arnaud too; he hasn't exactly distinguished himself defensively so far and the concussions are at least a back of the mind issue. I agree that ideally you don't want to move a guy out from behind the plate, but he'd hardly be the first one.

bmfc1 Aug 29 2014 10:47 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

As with everything Mets related, you have to wonder if this is money related because it also removes the need for acquiring an established LF while putting much lower-priced players at C and LF. I hope that this is motivated by other reasons (finding a place for Pawlecki to play; moving d'Arnaud to a place where fewer balls are coming at him; protecting d'Arnaud's head).

Edgy MD Aug 29 2014 11:05 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

It's just about keeping options open. If this was purely about being cheap, well, trade one of them for an actual (and similarly priced) young leftfielder.

bmfc1 Aug 29 2014 11:26 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

How can you be that sure? As I said, I hope that you're right but with the Mets, money always has to be considered as a rationale.

Edgy MD Aug 29 2014 11:36 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

bmfc1 wrote: How can you be that sure? I'm cursed.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 29 2014 04:40 PM Re: d'Arnoutfield

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm less than thrilled about this possibility. I think a good part of Travis' appeal is how well he hits as a catcher. I would guess that his offense ranks higher among catchers than it does among left fielders. BG/LWFS similarity score: 111%

batmagadanleadoff Aug 29 2014 11:24 PM Re: d'Arnoutfield

bmfc1 wrote: As with everything Mets related, you have to wonder if this is money related because it also removes the need for acquiring an established LF while putting much lower-priced players at C and LF. I hope that this is motivated by other reasons (finding a place for Pawlecki to play; moving d'Arnaud to a place where fewer balls are coming at him; protecting d'Arnaud's head). Wonder away! I think that's a reasonable thought. The Mets appear to be so financially crippled, that their relative poverty touches upon every move they make. Edgy MD wrote: It's just about keeping options open. If this was purely about being cheap, well, trade one of them for an actual (and similarly priced) young leftfielder. And what kind of available outfielder, one year removed from the major league minimum salary, do you think the Mets might pluck from some other team's trash pile? We can hope that the Mets might finally get on the right side of some Amos Otis to the Royals type deal, but me, I wouldn't count on something like that happening.

Frayed Knot Aug 30 2014 05:40 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And what kind of available outfielder, one year removed from the major league minimum salary, do you think the Mets might pluck from some other team's trash pile? We can hope that the Mets might finally get on the right side of some Amos Otis to the Royals type deal, but me, I wouldn't count on something like that happening. You don't think a team would give up a young, promising OF'r for a young, promising catcher?

Edgy MD Aug 30 2014 07:39 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

Happens all the time.

Trachsel My Tears Aug 30 2014 07:44 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

GM's guide to Baseball, page 6: "What do you do when your organization has developed (or is developing) a talented catcher with potential to bat in the middle of the order? Why, you move him to some other position, asap. A catcher is not meant to be an offensive asset. If one shows any signs whatsoever of becoming one, it is mandatory that you find another position for him, preferably a position where offensively-skilled players are readily available on the open market, such as 1B or LF. Now, should you have another gifted catcher a few years behind this one, say in the minor leagues or even just a gleam in your eye come draft day, that will accelerate your need to trade (or move to another position) this offensively-skilled catcher, since that puts you in danger of simultaneously having on your ML roster two skilled catchers, one of whom will be entirely wasted, since MLB catchers never require a day off and never get hurt."

TheOldMole Aug 31 2014 02:40 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

Why are we so sure d'Arnaud would handle a position transition like Hundley or Piazza and not like Biggio or Berra?

Frayed Knot Aug 31 2014 06:02 PM Re: d'Arnoutfield

TheOldMole wrote: Why are we so sure d'Arnaud would handle a position transition like Hundley or Piazza and not like Biggio or Berra? Not sure at all. At the moment this remains nothing more than a thought that Terry floated among the coaches with the futuristic idea that if this Plawecki guy turns out to be as good as hoped, THEN WHAT? Terry even said that he hadn't even brought up the subject w/d'Arnaud since you'd want to be in an instructional league type of situation before even trying it.

Trachsel My Tears Sep 01 2014 05:09 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

Frayed Knot wrote: TheOldMole wrote: Why are we so sure d'Arnaud would handle a position transition like Hundley or Piazza and not like Biggio or Berra? Not sure at all. At the moment this remains nothing more than a thought that Terry floated among the coaches with the futuristic idea that if this Plawecki guy turns out to be as good as hoped, THEN WHAT? Terry even said that he hadn't even brought up the subject w/d'Arnaud since you'd want to be in an instructional league type of situation before even trying it. First place, it's a conversation Terry had with his superiors ("team brass") not his inferiors ("among the coaches"). Second place, if he's talking to the press about D'Arnaud's future without having spoken to D'arnaud first about his thinking, that's pretty poor personnel management. Or would you like to read about your bosses' plans for you without hearing a word from your boss first? Third place, if he was asked a direct question about D'arnaud's future based on the development of some kid, why wouldn't "We'll have to see our situation at that time" be a good answer? He certainly doesn't answer questions about next year's pitching staff, say, with off-the-wall remarks about "We may move Gee to the bullpen" or "If Syndergaard comes along by next spring, we might package him and Montero for a good shortstop." No, he just shuts off all such speculation as being premature. Which is what he should have done here.

Frayed Knot Sep 01 2014 07:28 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

I'm not suggesting that it was the ideal move to let this hypothetical leak out to the press--although that any player (and particularly a catcher) is subject to being shifted around the diamond at some point in his career shouldn't exactly come as a shock to him--it's that this is merely an idea at this point, one which is a long way from being tried much less implemented that we run the risk of getting ahead of ourselves here.

Ashie62 Sep 01 2014 07:39 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

I am calling it the Pawlecki gambit for now.

Edgy MD Sep 01 2014 09:23 AM Re: d'Arnoutfield

I suggested Terry was unwise to sing to the press at the top of the thread.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 01 2014 06:24 PM Re: d'Arnoutfield

"Unwise" is putting it charitably.

batmagadanleadoff Sep 01 2014 06:49 PM Re: d'Arnoutfield

Frayed Knot wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: And what kind of available outfielder, one year removed from the major league minimum salary, do you think the Mets might pluck from some other team's trash pile? We can hope that the Mets might finally get on the right side of some Amos Otis to the Royals type deal, but me, I wouldn't count on something like that happening. You don't think a team would give up a young, promising OF'r for a young, promising catcher? Sure. And if the Mets think they have a surplus of young, major league caliber catchers, they can turn that excess into a strength. But if the hypothetical trade target isn't far removed from the major league minimum --like d'Arnaud-- then he's coming cheap. NTTAWWT! And that hypothetical move would probably be dictated by finances. How do I know this? Because the Mets are broke. But would the Mets trade d'Arnaud for a LF'er earning around $10M a year, assuming d'Arnaud is expendable?

Edgy MD Sep 01 2014 07:09 PM Re: d'Arnoutfield

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: "Unwise" is putting it charitably. Nonetheless.

Ceetar Sep 01 2014 07:14 PM Re: d'Arnoutfield

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: And what kind of available outfielder, one year removed from the major league minimum salary, do you think the Mets might pluck from some other team's trash pile? We can hope that the Mets might finally get on the right side of some Amos Otis to the Royals type deal, but me, I wouldn't count on something like that happening. You don't think a team would give up a young, promising OF'r for a young, promising catcher? Sure. And if the Mets think they have a surplus of young, major league caliber catchers, they can turn that excess into a strength. But if the hypothetical trade target isn't far removed from the major league minimum --like d'Arnaud-- then he's coming cheap. NTTAWWT! And that hypothetical move would probably be dictated by finances. How do I know this? Because the Mets are broke. But would the Mets trade d'Arnaud for a LF'er earning around $10M a year, assuming d'Arnaud is expendable? Probably. But it's the definition of expendable that's debatable here. And he wouldn't be traded straight up for a LFer, he'd either be traded for someone top of the line and much much better than he is, or they'd get more than a LFer back. Especially if they're taking on salary for it.