Master Index of Archived Threads


Jung-Ho Kang?

Yes

7 votes

No

7 votes

Not Sure

8 votes

Other (explain)

0 votes

A Boy Named Seo Dec 16 2014 08:53 AM

The internet sez Korean shortstop Jung-Ho Kang was posted yesterday and bids must be submitted by Friday, the 19th. The internet also sez that the fee will likely be $10-15 million and he wants a contract in the neighborhood of 3/24, making the whole tab ~$34-$39M for 3 years ($11.33-$13M per). He's right-handed, 27-years old, and mashed in the hitter's paradise of the KBO (.354/.457/.733, 39 home runs) but the Mets (and other teams) are unsure how both his bat and glove will play in America. I think he's very intriguing (maybe because I really know jack shit about him). If his MLB ceiling ends up being "good" Jed Lowrie, is that enough? If he is something less than a monster, then we've got a fairly expensive (but potentially useful) guy who could prob play 4 infield spots, spelling Wright, whoever the shortstop ends up being in 2016, and maybe getting some starts at 2B and the odd one at first. Worth the risk? Or overpriced utility guy? Do you Kang or do you abstain?

Edgy MD Dec 16 2014 08:56 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

You shouldn't have left me a "not sure" option, because I'm really not sure. You've got to trust your scouts on this one. He certainly wallops the ball, but he looks to be a mistake hitter in a league where mistakes are more frequent.

A Boy Named Seo Dec 16 2014 09:17 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Yup, 'not sure' is sort of a given, isn't it? Should've left that off. If there were still more attractive options available today, I don't think I'm as into him. With the barren landscape, though, I'm leaning yes.

seawolf17 Dec 16 2014 09:20 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

At that rate, I'd go for it.

Ceetar Dec 16 2014 09:25 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

A lot seem to be saying he can't play the position.

A Boy Named Seo Dec 16 2014 09:29 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

That's the risky part! NO ONE KNOWS!! Jump or don't jump!?!

d'Kong76 Dec 16 2014 09:30 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Took not sure. If they're interested, they'll likely get outbid by another small market teams anyways.

themetfairy Dec 16 2014 09:46 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

What about Kodos?

batmagadanleadoff Dec 16 2014 09:50 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

As if ....

Edgy MD Dec 16 2014 10:15 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Reduced to a Yes/No answer, I'm going with No. The team needs to get at-bats for Flores, and if second and third are closed, then shortstop let it be. The downside is risky, but the potential reward his high. They have safer selections elsewhere. I don't mind them rolling the dice a little at short and having a backup plan or three in place.

Lefty Specialist Dec 16 2014 10:28 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

I said no. I think he's a creature of his league, where everybody's a great hitter. I don't think it'll translate well. Plus with the doubts as to whether SS is his true position, I just don't see why they should bother.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 16 2014 10:46 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

I voted yes, with my yes meaning they should put in a reasonable bid. If they're outbid, so be it. If they win the bidding, then try to sign Kang. 2015 would be the year you try him at shortstop. If it turns out he can hit, but is better suited for second base, then you slide him over there next year. Or trade him.

Frayed Knot Dec 16 2014 11:02 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Well I say yes. There is more money potential in foreign infielders than anything else we’re looking at now. If we don’t sign them somebody else will, maybe one of the other five NL East teams, maybe all of them. And with the money they’ll earn via extra TV rights and merchandising they’ll be able to buy more lineup and bullpen power, then they’ll come after us. Right now we have the young pitching and the farm system and they’re the best things to have. But foreign infielders are a thing of the future and if we don’t get a piece of that action we risk everything we have. Not now, but ten years from now. Next scene: Agent Borazzo enters ...

TransMonk Dec 16 2014 11:18 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I voted yes, with my yes meaning they should put in a reasonable bid. If they're outbid, so be it. If they win the bidding, then try to sign Kang. 2015 would be the year you try him at shortstop. If it turns out he can hit, but is better suited for second base, then you slide him over there next year. Or trade him. This seems very reasonable to me.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 16 2014 11:33 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

You have to figure the potential of a Korean star in Flushing could be well-worth the payout if he's good, but you're back to the question of whether he's any good.

Vic Sage Dec 16 2014 12:09 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

If he hits enough but can't play SS, then move him to 2b after Murphy leaves next year. If he can't hit or field well enough, then you move on. A big market team can afford the $30m to find out, but the Mets? Probably not.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 16 2014 12:19 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

On further thought I'd be very surprised if they go after this guy inasmuch as best-case he's a kind of Flores but older and more expensive. I've thought all along the Mets would go for a SS with the idea of having him be a LH hitting lead off guy, moving Flores to 2B, and trading Muffy. I sort of still think they do that.

Zvon Dec 16 2014 12:44 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

A shortstop who does not like to dive to catch baseballs? I'll pass.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 16 2014 01:00 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Why does this thread even exist? Is this guy willing to pay the Mets to play?

Edgy MD Dec 16 2014 01:01 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: On further thought I'd be very surprised if they go after this guy inasmuch as best-case he's a kind of Flores but older and more expensive. That's what I'm thinking.

Ceetar Dec 16 2014 01:01 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Why does this thread even exist? Is this guy willing to pay the Mets to play? That's about what it might take to get financial value equal to his production.

Vic Sage Dec 16 2014 01:02 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

I've thought all along the Mets would go for a SS with the idea of having him be a LH hitting lead off guy, moving Flores to 2B, and trading Muffy. I sort of still think they do that. i still HOPE they do that. And i don't care which side of the plate he hits from, as long as he doesn't have much of a platoon differential, with at least a .330 OB%, and can run well enough to put himself in scoring position, and is hard to throw out going 1st-3rd or at the plate. And is a good defensive SS. And it would be nice if he had some power, but thats not a necessity. But who meets these criteria? Very few. In fact, the only leadoff-hitting SS in baseball over the past 3 seasons that approaches these criteria and is still active and able to bat leadoff is... ...a guy named Reyes. why don't we get THAT guy?

seawolf17 Dec 16 2014 02:33 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Vic Sage wrote: I've thought all along the Mets would go for a SS with the idea of having him be a LH hitting lead off guy, moving Flores to 2B, and trading Muffy. I sort of still think they do that. i still HOPE they do that. And i don't care which side of the plate he hits from, as long as he doesn't have much of a platoon differential, with at least a .330 OB%, and can run well enough to put himself in scoring position, and is hard to throw out going 1st-3rd or at the plate. And is a good defensive SS. And it would be nice if he had some power, but thats not a necessity. But who meets these criteria? Very few. In fact, the only leadoff-hitting SS in baseball over the past 3 seasons that approaches these criteria and is still active and able to bat leadoff is... ...a guy named Reyes. why don't we get THAT guy? I have been beating, and will continue to beat, the Reyes drum as well.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 16 2014 02:47 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Why does the next Mets SS also have to be a lead-off hitter? I realize that given the way the team is constructed, they'd kill two birds with one stone if they could find that guy. But these days, you'd be grateful for having a SS that merely doesn't embarrass himself with the bat. For some reason, okay, a lot of reasons, I'm not confident that it'll be the Mets coming up with the next leadoff hitting SS.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 16 2014 03:03 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Reports today suggest that a Mets bid for Kang is "unlikely."

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 16 2014 03:05 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Zvon wrote: A shortstop who does not like to dive to catch baseballs? I'll pass. The Yankees just retired the number of a guy like that.

Ceetar Dec 16 2014 03:10 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Zvon wrote: A shortstop who does not like to dive to catch baseballs? I'll pass. The Yankees just retired the number of a guy like that. yeah, but he's not better than what we have either.

Lefty Specialist Dec 16 2014 04:17 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Vic Sage wrote: If he hits enough but can't play SS, then move him to 2b after Murphy leaves next year. If he can't hit or field well enough, then you move on. A big market team can afford the $30m to find out, but the Mets? Probably not. Isn't this exactly how Kaz Matsui played out?

Ceetar Dec 16 2014 04:24 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Lefty Specialist wrote: Vic Sage wrote: If he hits enough but can't play SS, then move him to 2b after Murphy leaves next year. If he can't hit or field well enough, then you move on. A big market team can afford the $30m to find out, but the Mets? Probably not. Isn't this exactly how Kaz Matsui played out? I'm more concerned about the 650 AB cost than the $30m cost.

Ashie62 Dec 16 2014 04:30 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

I keep thinking Kaz Matsui.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 16 2014 04:39 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang? Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 16 2014 09:40 PM

Point in fact: Matsui played in a different league, and had a significantly different skill set. (Although, y'know, if I squint a little to make my eyes more slit-like, it gets a little easier to see, I suppose.) All I'm saying is... there are probably some other comparisons to be had out there, and probably some less intellectually lazy/fraught ones, at that. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: On further thought I'd be very surprised if they go after this guy inasmuch as best-case he's a kind of Flores but older and more expensive. Oh, very much yes. Hell, Flores has probably been doing it in tougher run-scoring environments in his teens than this guy did in his mid-twenties. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I've thought all along the Mets would go for a SS with the idea of having him be a LH hitting lead off guy, moving Flores to 2B, and trading Muffy. I sort of still think they do that. Holdupholdupholdup. I hate to sound like a broken record, but, um... long-term second base vacancy, shmong-term second base vacancy. The Mets already have a young guy with some pop and on-base ability and a glove carrying Murph's bags, who's demonstrated more in a short sample at the big-league level than Flores has (never mind Bi Bim Bopper over here).

Edgy MD Dec 16 2014 06:05 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Sure, but as you note above when contrasting him with Kang, Flores' minor league track record still looks pretty sharp on his CV.

Zvon Dec 16 2014 08:07 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Reports today suggest that a Mets bid for Kang is "unlikely." Come on. We all must know by now (they have been saying it as a side note all along just to prepare us) that the Mets are going w/Flores/Tejada at short. Anything else is highly unlikely.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 16 2014 08:14 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Oh, c'mon. These bullshitting Mets were as likely to get this guy as my mom going out and getting me an original Van Gogh for the holidays. I'm still waiting for the money saved from the Santana and Bay contracts to be put back into the payroll. This is a joke, right? The team might already be as much as 10 or 15% over budget and they tried to sell the public that there was a chance they'd pick up a $10M+/year* player. *Includes posting fees

Edgy MD Dec 16 2014 08:46 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

If Sandy Alderson were in on an elaborate PR scheme, wouldn't he just put in a lowball bid? Bids are sealed, except for the winner, so he'd just say something like, "We were right there." Saying "We're thinking about it but probably not" doesn't sell anything to anybody.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 16 2014 09:05 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

What if Sandy's not in on it? What if the owners lead Sandy on, knowing all along that at the eleventh hour, they'd pull out, leaving it to Sandy to make the announcement? Anyways, there are limitless ways to pull off a dog and pony show, even without Sandy's complicity. But what do I know? I don't. The Mets might've been sincerely considering Kang, I'll concede. Adding $10M to salary shouldn't be that burdensome, even for the Mets, especially if they're trying to dump Gee and probably Murphy's salary. Now if the Mets have to pare down to the sub $90M payroll levels of recent past because that's all they can afford, then that might be evidence that the Mets couldn't have afforded Kang. Time will tell. And even then, we'll never know for certain, so there'll always be plausible deniability for anyone who wants to deny.

d'Kong76 Dec 17 2014 06:42 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

I don't think getting rid of Murphy would be classified as a salary dump... more a get something for him while his value is perceived at it's highest by some and he's in his last year of a contract.

Edgy MD Dec 17 2014 07:21 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Pretty cool how that post reads as almost perfectly justified.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 17 2014 09:34 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

d'Kong76 wrote: I don't think getting rid of Murphy would be classified as a salary dump... more a get something for him while his value is perceived at it's highest by some and he's in his last year of a contract. We'll see. If they trade Murph for minor leaguers and major leaguers with little experience who don't make much more than the minimum salary, I'd suspect a salary dump no matter how the team describes it. I'd also suspect a salary dump if the Mets salary is eventually $10M or so below current levels.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 17 2014 09:38 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: I don't think getting rid of Murphy would be classified as a salary dump... more a get something for him while his value is perceived at it's highest by some and he's in his last year of a contract. We'll see. If they trade Murph for minor leaguers and major leaguers with little experience who don't make much more than the minimum salary, I'd suspect a salary dump no matter how the team describes it. I'd also suspect a salary dump if the Mets salary is eventually $10M or so below current levels. But it can get more complicated than to simply look at what the Mets get in return for Murphy to figure out if the Mets are dumping salary. All the future moves are related. So, for example, if the Mets can unload Colon and his $11M salary without taking on any significant salary in exchange, that would allow the Mets to take on more salary for Murph. So maybe, the way to determine if the Mets are dumping salary is to just look at the overall team payroll once the dust settles.

Ceetar Dec 17 2014 10:11 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Oh, c'mon. These bullshitting Mets were as likely to get this guy as my mom going out and getting me an original Van Gogh for the holidays. I'm still waiting for the money saved from the Santana and Bay contracts to be put back into the payroll. This is a joke, right? The team might already be as much as 10 or 15% over budget and they tried to sell the public that there was a chance they'd pick up a $10M+/year* player. *Includes posting fees If that's true, they were already over budget and signed Cuddyer, so why would that prevent them from signing someone else?

batmagadanleadoff Dec 17 2014 10:45 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Oh, c'mon. These bullshitting Mets were as likely to get this guy as my mom going out and getting me an original Van Gogh for the holidays. I'm still waiting for the money saved from the Santana and Bay contracts to be put back into the payroll. This is a joke, right? The team might already be as much as 10 or 15% over budget and they tried to sell the public that there was a chance they'd pick up a $10M+/year* player. *Includes posting fees If that's true, they were already over budget and signed Cuddyer, so why would that prevent them from signing someone else? You could be right. But maybe, the Mets signed Cuddyer knowing all along that they would pare down the payroll going forward in order to squeeze Cuddyer into what might be the same budget as last year's budget. TBD

Vic Sage Dec 17 2014 03:19 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Regarding 2b, if the Mets feel like either Flores or Hererra are ready to play 2b (or Matt Reynolds even), then Murphy is still available for trade. According to this http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/ ... er=ya5nbcs the Giants are looking to trade for a 3bman, and that is Murphy's best defensive position. Is SF a possible landing spot for Mr. Murphy? I'd take Brandon Crawford straight up for him. What about that kid they have, Matt Duffy? He was a SS in the minors and hit really well, with speed and a high OB%. They view him solely as a 2bman, though. Is his range that limited? Can he play SS in the majors? i'd take him if he can.

Zvon Dec 17 2014 05:02 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Regarding 2b, if the Mets feel like either Flores or Hererra are ready to play 2b (or Matt Reynolds even), then Murphy is still available for trade. According to this http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/ ... er=ya5nbcs the Giants are looking to trade for a 3bman, and that is Murphy's best defensive position. Is SF a possible landing spot for Mr. Murphy? I'd take Brandon Crawford straight up for him. What about that kid they have, Matt Duffy? He was a SS in the minors and hit really well, with speed and a high OB%. They view him solely as a 2bman, though. Is his range that limited? Can he play SS in the majors? i'd take him if he can. I'm starting to get the feeling Muffy is always available for trade. If we could get a much needed piece from SF, I wouldn't bitch too much, cause as far as Dan's goes, that could be a good move for him career wise.

Edgy MD Dec 17 2014 07:21 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

You think that's a deal that the Giants would want? Do you think it'd take a throw-in? I like Crawford a lot.

Vic Sage Dec 18 2014 05:44 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

i have no idea if they'd do it, and it may take another piece, even if they liked Murphy, because he's only under team control for 1 more year. Murphy and Montero for Crawford and a prospect?

Edgy MD Dec 18 2014 06:34 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Better be a meaningful prospect. Montero's more than a throw-in. I don't like Crawford that much necessarily.

Centerfield Dec 18 2014 07:31 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

It looks like the Mets are going to take a pass here. I can't blame them for this. Kang's 38 HR's last year are the exception, not the norm. It looks like he is more of a 15 HR guy, even in Korea. If he were a terrific defensive player, then it might be worth considering, but as of now, he is not likely to be better than Flores either offensively or defensively. On the plus side though, I imagine he'd generate a lot of revenue from the Korean population in Flushing.

Vic Sage Dec 18 2014 08:12 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Edgy MD wrote: Better be a meaningful prospect. Montero's more than a throw-in. I don't like Crawford that much necessarily. Montero is AAA/ML ready; i was thinking of an equivalent but younger prospect still at A/AA. SF could put Montero at the back of their rotation immediately and let him develop there; we don't need to do that. We need a guy who can play SS well and whose offense still has upside, whose shown improvement every year, and is just now coming into his prime. We're not going to get that for 1-year rental of a solid but unspectacular 30-year old player who would asked to change positions... again. of course, since this is all a just a WATP, lets get him for Tejada!

Edgy MD Dec 18 2014 08:20 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

I don't know. Murphy may have one year of control, but Crawford has only two. Murphy will be 30 and has a 109 career OPS+. Crawford will be 28 and has a 91. I like him, but I think, as assets, they're closer than the difference Montero represents, to me.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 18 2014 09:25 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Yeah, I would think it would be more of a Rainy Lara-sized (or something comparable) difference between the two. Maybe a little more. (Crawford IS a shortstop, and a half-decent defensive one at that.)

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2014 09:36 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

I'm intrigued with this Crawford fellow. I'll bet Paul DePodesta thinks about him. Here's my deal: Muffy Tejada or Tovar Mazzoni or similar P prospect --for-- Crawford Affeldt We get the SS we need, they get the 3B they need + depth from which to choose Crawford's successor. We get a nice LH relief pitcher they get a young guy they like who could eventually be a role player or successor to their long-in-the-tooth guys like Vogelsong.

Ceetar Dec 18 2014 09:41 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

I wonder if other teams legitimately consider Murphy a possibility at third. He played there a little last year, but really has barely played third in the Majors so not regularly since 2008ish in the minors. (split some time in 2008 at other positions, and played OF in Flushing) He's a very good hitter for a 2Bman, for 3B, not as much. Just wondering if there is reluctance, which isn't a great thing for your trading partner to have.

Edgy MD Dec 18 2014 11:51 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Murphy may not be a superlative hitter by third base standards, but the seeming back-of-the-baseball-card certainty he brings probably has a value. Somebody (the Mets!) once traded for Brian F. Schneider. Countering Montero with Rain Lara is good thinking. Ynoa good trade chip when you spot one.

Frayed Knot Dec 18 2014 12:58 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

I believe SF would take either a 2B or 3B as they believe their half-year wonder Joe Panik can be Edgardo-like and play either position.

d'Kong76 Dec 19 2014 07:57 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

bids must be submitted by Friday, the 19th Is this in our time or Korean time.. I think it's tomorrow there?

Fman99 Dec 22 2014 11:02 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Winning bid went to Pittsburgh. I don't think he'll pan out as a star in the states but that could just be sour grapes.

d'Kong76 Dec 22 2014 11:02 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Looks like Kang is a Pirate according Hey Man.

d'Kong76 Dec 22 2014 11:03 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

Scooped again!

Frayed Knot Dec 22 2014 11:53 AM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

d'Kong76 wrote: Looks like Kang is a Pirate according Hey Man. Well the Pirates are the bid winner but they still need to reach a contract agreement, so he's not a Pittsburgher yet.

d'Kong76 Dec 22 2014 01:01 PM Re: Jung-Ho Kang?

True