Master Index of Archived Threads


Re-Sign Cespedes

Centerfield Nov 02 2015 05:50 PM

I encourage Sandy to get creative and fill our #3 and #4 spots with better options if he has them. But the more I think about it, I think they have to bring back Yoenis. No other options really fit well with what the Mets already have. I get it, his career numbers are much lower than what he did this year (.805 OPS), and he has some Cliff Floyd to him. And he may even be older than what they say he is. But he will likely be an elite player for the next three years. Which coincides with the years that this pitching staff will be together. He can play CF for 2 years, then slot over to a corner OF position after Granderson is done. Sure, he might suck for the last 2 years of his contract, but the Mets might be rebuilding then anyway. With 3 World Championships in hand. Plus, you never know if someone desperate will take that contract off of your hands. I'm open to other suggestions as well. But this is how I would attack this offseason.

El Segundo Escupidor Nov 02 2015 05:56 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I think NYC FC will trump anything the Mets can offer. (More seriously, I can see Cespedes getting Bonilla-esque hate in 6 months when he reverts to his normal career numbers.)

TransMonk Nov 02 2015 05:59 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I worry about his streaky nature, his defense and the back-end of his contract. His career stats are nowhere near what he was giving in August. Also, what do we do with Cuddyer and Lagares? Hard to see the Mets being OK with that kind of dollar commitment riding the bench for the majority of a full season. I have NO problem letting Cespedes walk. Someone else will overpay for him.

d'Kong76 Nov 02 2015 06:03 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I don't have a player in mind right this second but I'm more of the mindset of who are we going to replace him with... someone really solid. I think Cuddster and Laggy are bench players for the most part. I'd listen to 2 year deals for Cespedes, but why would he do that....

Centerfield Nov 02 2015 06:04 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

TransMonk wrote: I worry about his streaky nature, his defense and the back-end of his contract. His career stats are nowhere near what he was giving in August. Also, what do we do with Cuddyer and Lagares? Hard to see the Mets being OK with that kind of dollar commitment riding the bench for the majority of a full season. I have NO problem letting Cespedes walk. Someone else will overpay for him. Definitely all legit concerns. But who do you bring in to be your #3 and #4 then? I'm looking at the options out there and don't see anything close to what Cespedes offers. Plus he won't cost you a draft pick.

Ceetar Nov 02 2015 06:20 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

TransMonk wrote: I worry about his streaky nature, his defense and the back-end of his contract. His career stats are nowhere near what he was giving in August. Also, what do we do with Cuddyer and Lagares? Hard to see the Mets being OK with that kind of dollar commitment riding the bench for the majority of a full season. I have NO problem letting Cespedes walk. Someone else will overpay for him. Cespedes is a solid overall player and a nice player and kinda fun too. But I'm not overpaying for that. 3 years is probably the max I'd go with, but there are various other factors here. Lagares: Will he be ready for Opening Day (presuming he does actually have arm surgery)? Lagares played pretty well down the stretch and in the playoffs. If his defense/arm is back then he's a really nice piece to mix in there, but you start getting a little bit of crunch problem. Conforto: Granted, he hit a couple of bombs in game 4, but he was pretty bad for most of the postseason and was pretty iffy in September too. Excited for him, but he's not a lock for Opening Day. Cuddyer: I know 90% of Mets fans think he's done, but that seems unlikely to me. Had some decent second half stretches post-DL. If he's healthy I suspect he'll play and I suspect he'll be alright too if he does play. Granderson is obviously a lock, so that's already 4 guys vying for time in two spots, while we have holes in the middle infield offensively. I really like Curtis, but you could make a strong case for trying to sell high on him, especially if you keep Cespedes.

metsmarathon Nov 02 2015 06:21 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

the "what do we do with cuddyer" question should be the least of the reasons not to resign cespedes. we do with cuddyer what we should do with him no matter who we bring in. he sits. i mean, we're not moving conforto, or grandy into centerfield are we? so since he's going to be a corner outfielder bench player, and reserve 1b, no matter what happens, it should have no bearing on wether we bring back cespedes or any other potential centerfielder. at least lagares can bring plus-level defense once he gets his arm fixed up.

Centerfield Nov 02 2015 06:24 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Conforto? "Iffy in September"? If .813 OPS means iffy, I'll sign on for iffy.

metirish Nov 02 2015 06:27 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

What's his name from KC is a FA?....Cespedes was great and lifted the whole org, looked like he was playing hurt in the post season, who wasn't I suppose. I too would hate to overpay in years , Rubin says "sources" say Mets won't bite

Lefty Specialist Nov 02 2015 06:33 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

No, no, no. We saw what non-peak Cespedes looks like, and it's not pretty. Pass. He'll want a long deal that will just get uglier as time passes. Murphy, it was fine while it lasted, but we have options at second. I have a different take, though. Yes, they have to replace 3 and 4 in the order. Well, I'm comfortable with Conforto as my 3. He did pretty well this year and he'll only get better playing every day. One of those homers he hit was off a lefty, too. I like his makeup and Keith likes his swing. As for a 4 hitter, well this is where Sandy gets creative. There are many things that he can package. They need a Paul Goldschmidt type at first. They also need a shortstop who can both hit and field in the same body. They need a Juan Uribe type (or even Juan Uribe himself) who can spell David at times or replace him if/when he's injured. This is a very important thing, as David is probably a 120-game guy now. Wouldn't surprise me if Lagares has surgery planned, so Sandy better be looking for a ballhawk for center. And they need middle relief. That was made pretty obvious this past week. But middle relievers are a crapshoot. I think Robles and Reed are keepers, Familia is obvious, after that it's sayonara. They have pieces to trade. Here's where Sandy earns his money.

Ceetar Nov 02 2015 06:35 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Centerfield wrote: Conforto? "Iffy in September"? If .813 OPS means iffy, I'll sign on for iffy. .250/278/.478 for a .757 in nearly 100 Sept/Oct plate appearances. And that's a very slugging-heavy OPS which isn't as ideal. That's still somehow a 108 wRC+ though, which is surprising to me. There was always talk about sending him back down it just never materialized. I don't think anything that's happened has ruled out him starting in Vegas.

Edgy MD Nov 02 2015 06:36 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

The Mets were reportedly highly motivated to sign Cespedes when they realized how willing he was to patrol center. Now that that willingness has to be understood in the context of (1) some questionable instincts and (2) perhaps some damaged health, they clearly are going to reassess. Which doesn't mean they'll pull out, but it changes the calculations. I'm not necessarily concerned with what's out there. At least right now. There are alternatives on the trade market and the international market and such. We'll see how things unfold. We have this exclusive period to work with. But right now, Cespedes is golfer with a bum shoulder and a swollen knee.

Centerfield Nov 02 2015 06:46 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 02 2015 06:47 PM

Edgy MD wrote: The Mets were reportedly highly motivated to sign Cespedes when they realized how willing he was to patrol center. Now that that willingness has to be understood in the context of (1) some questionable instincts and (2) perhaps some damaged health, they clearly are going to reassess. Which doesn't mean they'll pull out, but it changes the calculations. I'm not necessarily concerned with what's out there. At least right now. There are alternatives on the trade market and the international market and such. We'll see how things unfold. We have this exclusive period to work with. But right now, Cespedes is golfer with a bum shoulder and a swollen knee. I hope that what you say is true. Because that would mean that there is money to spend for the right player. And that is important. Agreed that those things change calculations. Hopefully they change it for all teams, and so the Mets will be right in the center of things. (this part is meant to address LS post above) Bringing in 1B and RF into the equation is interesting. It certainly does open up a lot more options (and makes our offseason much more complex) if you bring those two positions into the mix. In the past I have not seen Sandy willing to shake things up that much. It will be interesting to see what he elects to do this winter.

Frayed Knot Nov 02 2015 06:46 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

metirish wrote: What's his name from KC is a FA? Alex Gordon.

Lefty Specialist Nov 02 2015 07:11 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Zobrist is a FA, just a rental by the Royals. But he's not the droid we're looking for.

Ceetar Nov 02 2015 07:16 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Lefty Specialist wrote: Zobrist is a FA, just a rental by the Royals. But he's not the droid we're looking for. I like Zobrist as a nice multi-use guy, probably probably not a great fit plus his habit of bouncing up and down before the pitch got on my nerves.

Ashie62 Nov 03 2015 01:05 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Ceetar wrote: Centerfield wrote: Conforto? "Iffy in September"? If .813 OPS means iffy, I'll sign on for iffy. .250/278/.478 for a .757 in nearly 100 Sept/Oct plate appearances. And that's a very slugging-heavy OPS which isn't as ideal. That's still somehow a 108 wRC+ though, which is surprising to me. There was always talk about sending him back down it just never materialized. I don't think anything that's happened has ruled out him starting in Vegas. No chance.

d'Kong76 Nov 03 2015 02:14 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Ceetar wrote: .250/278/.478 for a .757 in nearly 100 Sept/Oct plate appearances. And that's a very slugging-heavy OPS which isn't as ideal. That's still somehow a 108 wRC+ though, which is surprising to me. There was always talk about sending him back down it just never materialized. I don't think anything that's happened has ruled out him starting in Vegas. Sometimes I don't know how your ying and yang doesn't make your head explode. Always talk? Always? If he's not the starting left fielder next year it will be because he was part of a big trade.

El Segundo Escupidor Nov 03 2015 02:31 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Frayed Knot wrote: metirish wrote: What's his name from KC is a FA? Alex Gordon. Gordon is heading to Chi-town, has stated he wants to play there and both the Cubs and the Sox are rumored to be interested.

Ceetar Nov 03 2015 02:35 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: .250/278/.478 for a .757 in nearly 100 Sept/Oct plate appearances. And that's a very slugging-heavy OPS which isn't as ideal. That's still somehow a 108 wRC+ though, which is surprising to me. There was always talk about sending him back down it just never materialized. I don't think anything that's happened has ruled out him starting in Vegas. Sometimes I don't know how your ying and yang doesn't make your head explode. Always talk? Always? If he's not the starting left fielder next year it will be because he was part of a big trade. You could go back to every roster move that happened in August and find a reference to Conforto being sent back down. (and in fact he was for Cespedes) He avoided it by actually hitting in August, something that he didn't do in September or October.

Lefty Specialist Nov 03 2015 02:50 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Absolutely zero chance Conforto stars in Vegas. You're set in left and right (unless Grandy gets traded). Lagares is a question mark with his elbow. I think Duda needs to be replaced with someone more reliable. We need more consistent production out of first base. So if there's a trade that can be made, they should do it. I'd like to see Dilson Herrera at second and leave him there. He's done all he can do at Vegas. Wilmer Flores is not a shortstop. No more fitting square pegs into round holes. Trade him (but dear god, not to Milwaukee)- won't see him cry in the offseason. Has value, but he vanished offensively down the stretch and in the playoffs. Tejada's a good backup but they need a real full-time shortstop with range and the skills to lead off. Tall order, but that's why Sandy gets the big money. Middle relief is needed, but that's always a matter of finding diamonds in the rough. The variability from season to season means it's always a crap shoot. One of the best relievers for KC was Ryan Freaking Madsen, who was completely out of baseball for 2 years. So there's no perfect formula. First four starters are Harvey/deGrom/Syndergaard/Matz. I hear these guys are pretty good. Niese is your number 5, and Wheeler comes back in the second half. If Niese can be traded (and he should), you can either give the job to Logan Verrett or sign Colon cheaply. Montero is still out there, too, if he can ever get his act together. So there are options. Lotta work to do.

Centerfield Nov 03 2015 03:16 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Lefty Specialist wrote: Absolutely zero chance Conforto stars in Vegas. You're set in left and right (unless Grandy gets traded). Lagares is a question mark with his elbow. I think Duda needs to be replaced with someone more reliable. We need more consistent production out of first base. So if there's a trade that can be made, they should do it. I'd like to see Dilson Herrera at second and leave him there. He's done all he can do at Vegas. Wilmer Flores is not a shortstop. No more fitting square pegs into round holes. Trade him (but dear god, not to Milwaukee)- won't see him cry in the offseason. Has value, but he vanished offensively down the stretch and in the playoffs. Tejada's a good backup but they need a real full-time shortstop with range and the skills to lead off. Tall order, but that's why Sandy gets the big money. Middle relief is needed, but that's always a matter of finding diamonds in the rough. The variability from season to season means it's always a crap shoot. One of the best relievers for KC was Ryan Freaking Madsen, who was completely out of baseball for 2 years. So there's no perfect formula. First four starters are Harvey/deGrom/Syndergaard/Matz. I hear these guys are pretty good. Niese is your number 5, and Wheeler comes back in the second half. If Niese can be traded (and he should), you can either give the job to Logan Verrett or sign Colon cheaply. Montero is still out there, too, if he can ever get his act together. So there are options. Lotta work to do. Who is your replacement for Cespedes in this scenario? Still need a middle-of-the-order guy.

Centerfield Nov 03 2015 03:21 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I thought about it some more. If Sandy is wary of signing Cespedes to a long-term deal (and I readily admit the drawbacks there), I think he could go another route: 1. Sign Justin Upton 2. Trade Granderson at the peak of his value. (Does someone take on that salary for the last 2 years?) 3. Go for Colby Rasmus (or maybe trade for Gomez?) for CF This is a lot more shakeup than just re-signing Cespedes, and a lot of things have to fall in place for something like this to happen. But it's an idea. Especially if you think Granderson is not likely to repeat his great 2015. Like LS said. Lots of work to do.

d'Kong76 Nov 03 2015 03:26 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I can't see trading Granderson. I think he'd be hard to move and really I think he's a big part of this teams personality and clubhouse.

Edgy MD Nov 03 2015 03:28 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

He is. And I really appreciated how he assumed many of Wright's "face o' the franchise duties" while Wright was away from the team. But people get dealt. And the river rolls on.

d'Kong76 Nov 03 2015 03:35 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Ya need a couple of older players like that. Similarly, Bartolo is everyone's favorite uncle to a lot of the younger players.

TransMonk Nov 03 2015 03:35 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I, too, worry about power. It will be hard to rely on Wright for more than 15-ish HRs (essentially replacing what will be lost when Murphy leaves). Duda's consistency is also a big question mark for me. It seems like power is going to have to potentially come from a new center fielder or middle infielder...which is not where one traditionally finds a lot of pop. A full year from d'Arnaud would help...but I've never seen one of those before. It's very early in the off-season, but I'm on the Colby Rasmus bandwagon.

Centerfield Nov 03 2015 03:38 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Which is the difficulty of this off-season. We need a middle of the order guy. But our corner OF and corner IF positions are all accounted for.

Edgy MD Nov 03 2015 03:43 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

TransMonk wrote: I, too, worry about power. It will be hard to rely on Wright for more than 15-ish HRs (essentially replacing what will be lost when Murphy leaves). Duda's consistency is also a big question mark for me. It seems like power is going to have to potentially come from a new center fielder or middle infielder...which is not where one traditionally finds a lot of pop. A full year from d'Arnaud would help...but I've never seen one of those before. It's very early in the off-season, but I'm on the Colby Rasmus bandwagon. Well, it's good to see that we don't have to buy into the rebuild-like-KC-with-high-contact-high-batting-average line. Obviously, we can't "rely" on anybody for anything, but Wright is a good bet to provide more than he (and Campbell) did last year. And we can reasonably expect more power to come organically from catcher and left field.

Centerfield Nov 03 2015 04:04 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Edgy MD wrote: TransMonk wrote: I, too, worry about power. It will be hard to rely on Wright for more than 15-ish HRs (essentially replacing what will be lost when Murphy leaves). Duda's consistency is also a big question mark for me. It seems like power is going to have to potentially come from a new center fielder or middle infielder...which is not where one traditionally finds a lot of pop. A full year from d'Arnaud would help...but I've never seen one of those before. It's very early in the off-season, but I'm on the Colby Rasmus bandwagon. Well, it's good to see that we don't have to buy into the rebuild-like-KC-with-high-contact-high-batting-average line. Obviously, we can't "rely" on anybody for anything, but Wright is a good bet to provide more than he (and Campbell) did last year. And we can reasonably expect more power to come organically from catcher and left field. I hope to god that we do not hear these types of statements from Sandy at the end of the off-season trying to justify another winter of futility. They just went to the World Series. The goal should be to build a championship caliber team. If they lose Cespedes and Murphy and do dick again this offseason, the offense will be terrible. Just like it was before the trade deadline. And the Mets will revert to mediocrity. The goal for this winter is exactly the same as it was last winter. Find a middle of the order bat (or two). They failed miserably at that last winter. They were lucky to be able to correct that mistake at the trade deadline this year in time to make the playoffs. They may not be so lucky next year. Don't take chances. Get it done this winter.

Edgy MD Nov 03 2015 04:10 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I'm sorry my observation invokes desperate prayer. I'm responding to a statement from Transmonk, and my response is rooted in reason. There shouldn't be a whole lot of extra-contextual meaning extrapolated from that. I think the idea that answers should only come from the outside and dramatic offseason transacting and not be the result of years of building doesn't hold up. And I think harvesting from the fruits of those years of building isn't "doing dick." OE: Nonetheless, I expect there will be transacting and nothing I wrote should imply advocacy for or a prediction to the contrary.

El Segundo Escupidor Nov 03 2015 04:20 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I like both the CarGo and Colby Rasmus idea

Edgy MD Nov 03 2015 04:44 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Rasmus disturbs me. He always looks like some guy who stole my bike when I was 11. [fimg=400:tp4jnttc]http://www.joesportsfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/colby-rasmus-2013.jpg[/fimg:tp4jnttc]

Centerfield Nov 03 2015 04:46 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Edgy MD wrote: I'm sorry my observation invokes desperate prayer. I'm responding to a statement from Transmonk, and my response is rooted in reason. I think the idea that answers should only come from the outside and dramatic offseason transacting and not be the result of years of building doesn't hold up. And I think harvesting from the fruits of those years of building isn't "doing dick." OE: Nonetheless, I expect there will be transacting and nothing I wrote should imply advocacy for or a prediction to the contrary. The Mets just played 2 games with their head up their ass. It doesn't take much to invoke desperate prayer from me these days. I agree we can hope to get some improvement over the course of the year from Conforto, d'Arnaud, and hopefully a healthy Wright. And that is fine. But if it's March, and Sandy is using this logic as a justification for why he did not replace the production lost from Murphy and Cespedes I'll fucking lose it. Everyone is entitled to harvest the fruits of your player development. That's good. But it's not going to be enough. We need to replace the thunder that we are likely to lose. Last winter the Mets were a cleanup hitter away from putting a great team on the field. They failed. They signed Michael Cuddyer and hoped to get away with it. That move, not surprisingly, was not enough. It wasn't until they got a real cleanup hitter that they became NL Champions. Now he's likely gone. He needs to be replaced.

Centerfield Nov 03 2015 04:49 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

And for the record, I have the utmost faith in Sandy Alderson. I think he's earned it. No matter what happened against KC, he fucking rocked it this July, and showed us all what he can do. The Wilpons are the issue here. If they fund this team, we will be one of the favorites for the post-season for years to come. If they handcuff Sandy again, we're fucked.

d'Kong76 Nov 03 2015 04:51 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

[fimg=400:3knsbpxi]http://www.kcmets.com/CPF/rasmus.jpg[/fimg:3knsbpxi]

Centerfield Nov 03 2015 04:52 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Edgy MD wrote: Rasmus disturbs me. He always looks like some guy who stole my bike when I was 11. [fimg=400]http://www.joesportsfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/colby-rasmus-2013.jpg[/fimg] Wow. Is that what he looks like? He's 47 years old!

Edgy MD Nov 03 2015 04:54 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

d'Kong76 wrote: [fimg=400]http://www.kcmets.com/CPF/rasmus.jpg[/fimg] <>

Ceetar Nov 03 2015 04:56 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Centerfield wrote: It wasn't until they got a real cleanup hitter that they became NL Champions. Now he's likely gone. Yoenis Cespedes was 1/8 with a walk and a -.0038 WPA in his first two games with the Mets against the Nats. That was the only time the Mets weren't in first place with Cespedes. He certainly helped put them away, especially in the next series, but he was merely a part of a bigger picture, one that included Wright and d'Arnauds return.

Edgy MD Nov 03 2015 05:01 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

And the promotion of Conforto. And the acquisition of Uribe. And the acquisition of Johnson. And heck, the healthy return of an unhealthy Cuddyer. It's like seven good or better major league hitters showing up at once. That suddenly knocked some regulars or semi-regulars down to second or third string to clear off the team in some cases. It was, in retrospect, awesome. And it pleases me to think back on it.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 03 2015 05:29 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

We don't Cespedes back, we just need a way to replace his contributions. Not to say we couldn't still use him but consider: He's not a good centerfielder, we have 3 outfielders already under contract, Nimmo on the way, and lots of possibilities in the trade/FA market, and he basically cost us the World Series. We should be thankful the best 6 weeks of his career were with us and move on.

TransMonk Nov 03 2015 05:32 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

We don't Cespedes back, we just need a way to replace his contributions. Not to say we couldn't still use him but consider: He's not a good centerfielder, we have 3 outfielders already under contract, Nimmo on the way, and lots of possibilities in the trade/FA market, and he basically cost us the World Series. We should be thankful the best 6 weeks of his career were with us and move on. This. Especially the part in bold.

seawolf17 Nov 03 2015 05:36 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Let him go. You can't overpay for one amazing month. Thanks for the memories, friend.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 03 2015 05:41 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I agree too. But I'll add that the Mets are gonna let him go no matter what we say. They'll let him go even if we all wanted him back. In fact, I'd say that the Mets are gonna let Cespedes go even if they themselves wanted him back. [fimg=555:1b4ab6vz]http://d3vsdfvkxh87qp.cloudfront.net/articles_images/v7/1420502128717/image.jpg[/fimg:1b4ab6vz]

Benjamin Grimm Nov 03 2015 05:42 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Really? Huh! I guess there's not much point discussing anything at all then, is there?

Ceetar Nov 03 2015 05:42 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

It does really depend on what the market is for him. He's still a good player. Especially since he cooled down in September and October (but you know, was hurt..) I doubt people are looking to give him 6 years. But perhaps his passable CF raised his value and who knows if it'd drop to what might actually be a reasonable price.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 03 2015 05:43 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Really? Huh! I guess there's not much point discussing anything at all then, is there? Why do you say that?

Benjamin Grimm Nov 03 2015 05:44 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

In response to your pointing out the obvious: the Mets are gonna let him go no matter what we say. They'll let him go even if we all wanted him back.

Centerfield Nov 03 2015 05:45 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: We don't Cespedes back, we just need a way to replace his contributions. Not to say we couldn't still use him but consider: He's not a good centerfielder, we have 3 outfielders already under contract, Nimmo on the way, and lots of possibilities in the trade/FA market, and he basically cost us the World Series. We should be thankful the best 6 weeks of his career were with us and move on. Agreed. But I just don't see how they are going to replace his production with the options that they have. Maybe I'm not seeing all the angles, but the only guy I can see replacing Cespedes is Yoenis Cespedes. (And that Upton/Granderson option I discussed earlier but that seems really far-fetched).

batmagadanleadoff Nov 03 2015 05:46 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Do you think it's so obvious?

d'Kong76 Nov 03 2015 05:50 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Ceetar wrote: But perhaps his passable CF raised his value Perhaps, to a kick bucket basketball squad looking for a CF.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 03 2015 05:54 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Do you think it's so obvious? It's obvious that we have no effect on what the Mets do or don't do.

Nymr83 Nov 03 2015 06:45 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I think a Cespedes re-signing would end up being a contract the Mets would regret. He had a nice little run, thank him for it and move on.

Zvon Nov 03 2015 09:02 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I'm on the fence. I only know he's not getting a 7 year deal here (or 6 for that matter). So let's see what the market dictates.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 04 2015 10:48 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Benjamin Grimm wrote: In response to your pointing out the obvious: the Mets are gonna let him go no matter what we say. They'll let him go even if we all wanted him back. I was just being goofy with that line. It's not as if I thought that that really needed to be explained.

Mex17 Nov 04 2015 11:11 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Centerfield wrote: I'm sorry my observation invokes desperate prayer. I'm responding to a statement from Transmonk, and my response is rooted in reason. I think the idea that answers should only come from the outside and dramatic offseason transacting and not be the result of years of building doesn't hold up. And I think harvesting from the fruits of those years of building isn't "doing dick." OE: Nonetheless, I expect there will be transacting and nothing I wrote should imply advocacy for or a prediction to the contrary. The Mets just played 2 games with their head up their ass. It doesn't take much to invoke desperate prayer from me these days. I agree we can hope to get some improvement over the course of the year from Conforto, d'Arnaud, and hopefully a healthy Wright. And that is fine. But if it's March, and Sandy is using this logic as a justification for why he did not replace the production lost from Murphy and Cespedes I'll fucking lose it. Everyone is entitled to harvest the fruits of your player development. That's good. But it's not going to be enough. We need to replace the thunder that we are likely to lose. Last winter the Mets were a cleanup hitter away from putting a great team on the field. They failed. They signed Michael Cuddyer and hoped to get away with it. That move, not surprisingly, was not enough. It wasn't until they got a real cleanup hitter that they became NL Champions. Now he's likely gone. He needs to be replaced. Or retained.

MFS62 Nov 04 2015 02:15 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

A procedural question here. Cespedes was acquired with a clause in his contract that said any team of which he is a member at the end of the season had five days to sign him or not be able to re-sign him until next April. Mets fans breathed a sigh of relief when that restriction was renegotiated. But, IIRC, there was another restriction. Because he played for several teams this year, he is not eligible to receive a qualifying offer. A qualifying offer would entitle the Mets to receive a compensatory draft pick. The reason I'm asking is I have heard several of the WFAN and ESPN talking heads say that if the Mets make one to him and Murphy, at least they would gain a draft pick My question, was that non-compensation waived in Conforto's deal as well? (Or is it mandatory in the CBA?) A huge one year qualifying offer might make resigning with the Mets very attractive to him. Later

Benjamin Grimm Nov 04 2015 02:18 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

No, the Qualifying Offer option is not available for Cespedes.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 04 2015 02:19 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 04 2015 02:27 PM

No QO pick for any in-season acquisitions. The sort of contact Cespedes could/will demand-- 5-plus years, the sort of dollar load that would severely constrict Metly ability to take on money in trades, etc.-- would likely be the sort of contract that Met stewards would regret. Honestly, I'm more concerned with getting Lagares healthy, keeping d'Arnaud so, and developing the Herreras and such... all of which would go a long way toward replacing Cespedes' production (in impact, if not in shape). Rasmus seems like he'd be more cost-effective for the value, but I have my doubts about that, too. Son might be the best bet for FA offense at a reasonable price, blind bet or no (with Heyward, Upton, and YoYo all on the market as price checks).

Ceetar Nov 04 2015 02:21 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

MFS62 wrote: A procedural question here. Cespedes was acquired with a clause in his contract that said any team of which he is a member at the end of the season had five days to sign him or not be able to re-sign him until next April. Mets fans breathed a sigh of relief when that restriction was renegotiated. But, IIRC, there was another restriction. Because he played for several teams this year, he is not eligible to receive a qualifying offer. A qualifying offer would entitle the Mets to receive a compensatory draft pick. The reason I'm asking is I have heard several of the WFAN and ESPN talking heads say that if the Mets make one to him and Murphy, at least they would gain a draft pick My question, was that non-compensation waived in Conforto's deal as well? (Or is it mandatory in the CBA?) A huge one year qualifying offer might make resigning with the Mets very attractive to him. Later You mean Cespedes in your question. It's a mandatory part of the CBA. Players traded mid-season are not eligible for qualifying offers. The Mets get nothing if/when Cespedes signs with another team. The rule that required them to sign him within 5 days was a little more complicated and seemed to be part of some older rules/pre-QO put in place. I don't recall the exact reasons since it doesn't matter, but the crux of it was that teams that didn't retain their own guys had to wait until May 15th to re-sign them. Mets will get the draft pick for Murphy if he signs elsewhere after they make him the QO. They almost definitely won't make anyone else an offer (like Parnell or Colon)

Nymr83 Nov 04 2015 02:22 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

batmagadanleadoff wrote: In response to your pointing out the obvious: the Mets are gonna let him go no matter what we say. They'll let him go even if we all wanted him back. I was just being goofy with that line. It's not as if I thought that that really needed to be explained. but they left Harvey in to pitch the 9th because the fans wanted it... :)

Frayed Knot Nov 04 2015 02:36 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Ceetar wrote: The rule that required them to sign him within 5 days was a little more complicated and seemed to be part of some older rules/pre-QO put in place. I don't recall the exact reasons since it doesn't matter, but the crux of it was that teams that didn't retain their own guys had to wait until May 15th to re-sign them. It was simply because, coming out of Cuba as he did, he arrived at MLB as the equivalent of a professional FA so had the power to negotiate such a clause into his deal. It both allowed him to be a FA after just 4 seasons and put pressure on his current team to either re-up ahead of time or risk losing him. Several of the Japanese pros have had similar clauses so as to not have to put in the six full years before attaining FA status. Turned out for Yeonis to be a rather strange trip as I don't figure he or his agent anticipated being in his 4th organization before his initial 4-year deal ran out, but that's the way the ball bounces (off his foot).

MFS62 Nov 04 2015 02:46 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Ceetar wrote: You mean Cespedes in your question. Yes, I did. And, thanks for the explanation. Later

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 13 2015 03:31 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

So, maybe if we're serious about this, we're offering him a signing bonus of the Batwing, or the Tumbler. Because he seems to have designed himself a pretty fucking ridiculous Batmobile already. [youtube:1b9k3paz]RmPBDYheRIY[/youtube:1b9k3paz]

Centerfield Nov 13 2015 03:24 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

So, the guy is definitely an "at-risk" when it comes to douchability factor. He has a customized walk up song, this batmobile stuff, dogs it on many plays, and acts like a limb has been severed every time he gets dinged up (see Floyd, Cliff). I don't know. I still like him. I'm still holding onto a faint hope that we can sign him for 4-5 years.

Centerfield Nov 13 2015 03:27 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Although, now that I think about it, if I were young, single, playing baseball in NY, and had millions of dollars to spend on stupid shit, I can't say for certain I wouldn't build a batmobile. I mean, I don't think I would, but I'm not sure I can totally rule it out. But I most certainly would not drive over to LWFS's house, pick him up, then cruise around town blasting Latin music. That would never happen.

Vic Sage Nov 13 2015 04:09 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

On the other hand, i CAN guarantee that I would, in fact, commission the creation of a batmobile. I'd pick up CF, LWFS and whoever else wants to go (if they can fit in the rumble seat), and we'd cruise the streets of Gotham with Steinman music blaring out of rooftop speakers.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 13 2015 04:33 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I'd get myself a Fantasticar:

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 13 2015 06:16 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Centerfield wrote: Although, now that I think about it, if I were young, single, playing baseball in NY, and had millions of dollars to spend on stupid shit, I can't say for certain I wouldn't build a batmobile. I mean, I don't think I would, but I'm not sure I can totally rule it out. But I most certainly would not drive over to LWFS's house, pick him up, then cruise around town blasting Latin music. That would never happen. [Takes off Robin mask] [Puts on sad, minor-key version of "El Esta Aqui"] Vic Sage wrote: On the other hand, i CAN guarantee that I would, in fact, commission the creation of a batmobile. I'd pick up CF, LWFS and whoever else wants to go (if they can fit in the rumble seat), and we'd cruise the streets of Gotham with Steinman music blaring out of rooftop speakers. I would do anything for Vic, but I won't do that. I'm more of a dangerous-experimental-surgery-to-give-myself-Inspector-Gadget-limbs guy, I think.

Edgy MD Nov 13 2015 06:25 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Munster Koach for me. No Steinman. Jack Mashall's surf rock will do fine.

dgwphotography Nov 13 2015 07:24 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Forget the Batmobile, the Munster Koach, or anything else. I want one of these:

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 20 2015 03:58 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Interesting stuff here on the selling of Cespedes to potential employers. In a bow to technology, the book also has a video player embedded inside the front cover. Executives who push the "play" button are treated to an array of Yoenis Cespedes home runs, jaw-dropping throws and other highlights set to music.

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2015 03:28 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

There's still a little smoke... https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/mets-still ... /159687604

dgwphotography Dec 15 2015 04:07 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I'm wary signing him long-term, but it sure does suck rooting for a team based in Milwaukee. (what? Milwaukee had a higher payroll?)

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2015 04:18 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Beer money spends! OE: I don't want him long-term (I don't think anyone does and that's his problem) but 2-3 years at a nice chunk-o-change might be what he has to settle for.

Edgy MD Dec 15 2015 04:23 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Maybe one of those escape clauses is what the situation needs. Sign him for six, and allow him to walk after two or three if he's out-playing his deal. I wish my brother Sandy was here.

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2015 04:29 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

No time like the present to get creative.

Centerfield Dec 15 2015 04:38 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

You'd think someone would give him a multi-year deal no? Zobrist had multiple 4 year deals and he's 35. I'd love if we could land Cespedes on a 4 year deal, team option for 5th year with a buyout. Opt out after 2 years. I understand the reservations about his walk rate, how he will age, etc. Think I would still prefer to sign Upton and let Granderson fake it in CF for 2 years.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 15 2015 04:59 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I wonder if they can get him on one of those contracts where he can opt out after two years? There's no guarantee that he would opt out, but it may be a sneaky way to get him on a shorter term. (The problem, of course, is that he'd opt out if he's underpaid, based on his performance, and stick around if he's overpaid.)

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2015 05:15 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Right, I think that's what Edgy was saying ^^^

Edgy MD Jan 20 2016 09:21 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Some guy with 18 followers (at the time) tweeted that he had a source reporting Cespedes to the White Sox for four years, and Twitter 'sploded for about an hour. Lots o' trolling going on.

Nymr83 Jan 20 2016 09:27 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I really don't want him back. I really think Conforto, Lagares, and Granderson are all better bets than him for 2016. He'll outplay 1 of them, but I don't even know which one and I don't want the Mets wasting 50 million+ dollars to stick the wrong guy on the bench. Heyward was the guy to get and the Mets blew that. I don't like the value of most of the other Free agent deals I've seen this winter.

Edgy MD Jan 20 2016 09:45 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Well, I imagine, should the organization re-sign the big guy, the team would come out of the gate with the same sort of platooning that they finished with last year. So Cespedes wouldn't bump any one guy to the bench, but rather would bump 1/3 of Conforto and 2/3 of Lagares. At least, until injuries and/or performance pushed them to adjust.

sharpie Jan 20 2016 10:09 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

The case against: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/162347602 ... s-outfield

Centerfield Jan 21 2016 02:52 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

The case against: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/162347602 ... s-outfield It's a pretty weak argument if you ask me. For what it's worth, I think that the Mets outfield could be fine. I just think that given the uncertainty of each of our core three (Lagarez, Conforto, Granderson), it's a stretch to say that it's probable that the outfield will be fine. And by no means can you say it is fine. As our author does. It's a tough thesis. He has to justify a 144 differential in career OPS that Lagares (.661) gives up to Cespedes (.805) To start, Petriello starts by tempering enthusiasm for Cespedes. Like others, he states that Yoenis: almost certainly isn't quite the star he looked like for a short time in Queens We've heard the arguments before. Small sample size. Results skewed by facing historically bad pitching. "Adventurous" in CF. Etc. All valid points. We cannot put too much weight on what he did in August and September. We have to consider what he will give us going forward. Then he gets into the meat of his argument. Which, although he says is not entirely about Juan Lagares, is pretty much entirely about Juan Lagares. Lagares will never be an offensive star, but after a solid 2014 and a hot finish to 2015, there's reason to believe he can be good enough. Not sure which Lagares he was watching in 2014, but the one that played for the Mets had a .703 OPS. Juan did have a hot finish to 2015. (.813 OPS in August. Even better at .929 in September.) And that's really Petriello's focus there. He further supports his "Lagares is pretty good" theory by citing Juan's exit velocity during the last two months of the season, which were much higher than his first four months. But wait, aren't these the same two months that we are discounting for Cespedes? Wasn't Lagares also facing historically bad pitching? Didn't Juan but up better numbers in this stretch than he's ever put up before? Disappointingly, our author never addresses this apparent discrepancy in logic. We are just left to accept that Cespedes' success during August and September was a fluke. But Juan Lagares' success in August and September is meaningful. But wait, we have two more outfielders to think of. Let's start with Conforto. According to Petriello: Conforto is a star in the making, after having hit .270/.335/.506 and with average exit velocity and launch angles that mirror those of Paul Goldschmidt. Great numbers. And I have really high hopes for Conforto. But when did he put up those number? August and September of 2015. There is a trend emerging here. Could he be great? Sure. But there is no way we can count on that as of right now. And finally, Curtis Granderson. Granderson, perpetually unloved because he no longer hits 40-plus homers, just had a five-win season and was a more valuable hitter than Jose Abreu or Prince Fielder. Curtis Granderson just had a great year. Unlike the others, his resurgence went beyond August and September. He also had a .915 OPS in June. But whereas Petriello's arguments relating to Cespedes and Lagares focus on what we expect them to do in 2016, his only justification of Curtis Granderson focuses on what Curtis already did in 2015. And with good reason. Curtis Granderson is a strong candidate to fall back to the pack in 2016. The projections suggest it. His numbers over the last few seasons suggest it. We all hope Curtis can replicate this last season, but we know that this not something we can count on. Finally, he doesn't say much about De Aza. But he does mention this: as the lefty-swinging De Aza is an ideal platoon partner [to Lagares] Sure. Except that De Aza is not really a centerfielder. So if you are keeping track, Cespedes in CF is "adventurous". De Aza is "ideal". Effectively, this guy, in one article, demonstrates nearly all of the double standards used by Cespedes detractors. *Cespedes' success last season is not meaningful because of small sample size! Besides, we can offset his loss by a full year of Michael Conforto. What? Sample size? Huh? *Don't re-sign Cespedes. Projections say he will have a fallback year! Besides, we have Curtis Granderson. What do the projections say? Come on. Baseball isn't played on a computer. *Cespedes sucks in CF! (and Granderson can't play it either) So let's go with De Aza instead. He seems ideal.

MFS62 Jan 21 2016 04:17 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Centerfield wrote: It's a tough thesis. He has to justify a 144 differential in career OPS that Lagares (.661) gives up to Cespedes (.805) Paul O'Neill (ptui) had an increase of .102 in his OPS when he played for the MFYs when compared to his OPS with the Reds. It can happen when a player moves to an environment that makes him comfortable. And his move was at the age of 30. Yeah, I know, the short porch. But he liked the challenge of playing in New York, and Cespedes has said he likes it, too. Who says he couldn't keep it up? Later

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 21 2016 06:20 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 21 2016 07:24 PM

There's talk of a National interest. Like, contract-offer-made interest, which puts them one up on teams that, y'know, haven't made one.

Centerfield Jan 21 2016 02:24 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Yeah, that would make me hurl.

Fman99 Jan 21 2016 05:18 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Yeah that's a PR buttfuck, if the Mets let both Muffy and Cespy end up in DC. Even a shitmouthed Wilpon would have to see that.

Edgy MD Jan 21 2016 05:35 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

There's a lot o' reasons to re-sign the big man. I hope PR isn't really one of them.

d'Kong76 Jan 21 2016 05:40 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I haven't been able to look for it, but according to a fan fb page there's some stuff out there that agents and some of the media are calling the Wilpon's ownership of an MLB team a "travesty." Imagine that!

d'Kong76 Jan 21 2016 06:08 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Whispers that the Yanks might move in on CesPaydes...

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 21 2016 06:35 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 21 2016 06:51 PM

I gotta be honest -- I still don't see the sense of Cespedes unless the Mets are also prepared to trade high on Grandy/Conforto or low on Lagares. And even then there are all those warning signs. My sense is that they go into the year with what they have and reassess in the summer. It would be more apparent then if its necessary to replace/upgrade the Lagares/DeAza duo and/or load up on more power. Also by then there's a chance Zimmo is an option. And when/if that's the case you figure to have plenty fuel for a potential trade -- Harvey, Plawecki/dArnaud, Lagares, Wheeler, Flores/Walker/Herrera just to name a few -- and can look toward a controllable type. There's a school of thought that teams will be anxious to trade over the summer given what looks to be an underwhelming FA class in 2016. So I'm saying, its not ideal but theoretically okay to go into the year knowing your offense won't likely have the NL HR king as long as your options are open, and the Mets' are. Thoughts?

batmagadanleadoff Jan 21 2016 06:37 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Also by then there's a chance Zimmo is an option.... Thoughts? Yeah. Who's Zimmo? Is he related to Harpo?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 21 2016 06:41 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Brandon Zimmo

batmagadanleadoff Jan 21 2016 06:44 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Brandon Zimmo Ha. I remember that. But I thought Fred said "Zimbo" instead of "Zimmo".

d'Kong76 Jan 21 2016 06:45 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I only want Yo for a short time, preferably a year. Probably not going to happen. If the Nats wanna go 5 years and over $100 mil we can laugh at them. But that's gonna be a pretty potent 2016 foe and will probably win the division like they were supposed to last year. Wilpon's still suck and are cheap and ought to be ousted from MLB.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 21 2016 06:49 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Not to speak for everyone here, but everyone here agrees the Wilpons are boobs. That's not really what I was asking about.

d'Kong76 Jan 21 2016 06:51 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I know it irritates some, I suppose I could make it my sig line instead of the upbeat one I currently have. The other thing is, how do we know Yo ain't 32-33? It happens all the time. Remember how quickly Fonzie appeared to age?

Frayed Knot Jan 21 2016 06:54 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

If Cespedes winds up with the Nats it would be interesting to see what they do with their OF. Harper is obviously a given and will play every day. But also they just traded for Ben Revere to hit leadoff and man CF while, in the other corner, Werth is still under an expensive and no-trade contract for another two seasons and shirley still sees himself as an everyday player if healthy.

d'Kong76 Jan 21 2016 06:57 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

The line-up they showed on MLB show earlier was Yo in CF and batting 4th or 5th.

Ceetar Jan 21 2016 07:13 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

as far as power goes, the Mets are likely going into the season with only CF as a position where they don't have at least a 10 HR guy. (And it's not like Lagares and De Aza don't homer at all). Power is Cespedes' tool, and the Mets aren't completely lacking in that dept.

d'Kong76 Jan 21 2016 07:18 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Remove that power from last summer the Mets play golf in October. I was one of the original Metsapoligists, we can do this until Spring Training is in full swing.

Ceetar Jan 21 2016 07:26 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

d'Kong76 wrote: Remove that power from last summer the Mets play golf in October. I was one of the original Metsapoligists, we can do this until Spring Training is in full swing. Nope, the Mets still make the playoffs without Cespedes. It's not like they squeaked in.

d'Kong76 Jan 21 2016 07:28 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

You're discounting a lot there, Ceets. It's not all about your magic numbers.

Ceetar Jan 21 2016 07:29 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

d'Kong76 wrote: You're discounting a lot there, Ceets. It's not all about your magic numbers. yeah, it very much is. Cespedes wasn't even really a factor in the first Nats series. He certainly wasn't worth 7 wins over 2 months.

d'Kong76 Jan 21 2016 07:31 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Start a poll... "Do the Mets Make The Playoffs Without the Cespedis Acquisition?"

Ceetar Jan 21 2016 07:40 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I'm not really interested in the public perception. Public polls suggest people want to see Donald Trump as president too, so grain of salt.

d'Kong76 Jan 21 2016 07:45 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

It's not the same thing, and there's more ingredients to the run the Mets went on and the transformation that took place than a fucking grain of salt. You really don't have to be so dismissive.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 21 2016 08:29 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

The popular conception is that the Mets wouldn't have made the playoffs without Cespedes. The reality is obviously impossible to untangle. But, assuming everyone else had done what they did going down the stretch-- SEE: d'Arnaud, Wright, Johnny Lags On Fire-- it does seem likely that this conception would be incorrect.

Centerfield Jan 21 2016 09:47 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I gotta be honest -- I still don't see the sense of Cespedes unless the Mets are also prepared to trade high on Grandy/Conforto or low on Lagares. And even then there are all those warning signs. The sense of bringing in Cespedes, is that he is a terrific hitter. He is leaps and bounds better than Lagares. He will likely outperform Granderson, and though we hope Conforto has a higher ceiling, we just don't know what he will be yet. You don't need to trade any of those four, because there are plenty of AB's in a season for 4 outfielders. You have to assume some injuries, etc. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: My sense is that they go into the year with what they have and reassess in the summer. It would be more apparent then if its necessary to replace/upgrade the Lagares/DeAza duo and/or load up on more power. Also by then there's a chance Zimmo is an option. My sense is that this is what they will do as well. But bringing in Cespedes is highly preferable. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: And when/if that's the case you figure to have plenty fuel for a potential trade -- Harvey, Plawecki/dArnaud, Lagares, Wheeler, Flores/Walker/Herrera just to name a few -- and can look toward a controllable type. Well, I guess you can always make a trade. But trades are a give and take. Re-signing your own player is just a take. Plus, you have to wait until the market develops and hope that there is a match. Can the Mets stay alive until this happens? Maybe. Maybe even probably. But it's a risk. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: There's a school of thought that teams will be anxious to trade over the summer given what looks to be an underwhelming FA class in 2016. It is a weak FA market next year, and more teams will be looking to improve via trades. And that means more competition, which means it's harder to make that trade. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: So I'm saying, its not ideal but theoretically okay to go into the year knowing your offense won't likely have the NL HR king as long as your options are open, and the Mets' are. Thoughts? Well, whether or not we have Cespedes, we are not going to have the NL HR king. The real question here is whether it's ok to go in knowing that the offense could be a weakness. And I guess I don't really know what you mean by "ok". I mean, everything is ok. The Mets don't get fined for this. I guess what you mean is whether it's ok to us, as fans. And to that I say, it depends on the fan. If your objective each off-season is to create a team that is competitive, then sure. The Mets have done this. If your objective is to create a juggernaut, then no, I don't think the Mets have done that. My philosophy is that the Mets (and really every team) should use the off-season to build as good a team as they possibly can while balancing future interests. And here, by taking a pass not just with Cespedes, but the myriad of great options that were available this winter, they have failed. It's funny that the knock on Cespedes is that he's been gifted with incredible talent, but he lacks that killer instinct required to make the most of that talent. And so instead of being amazing, he's just good enough. But the Mets, if anything, are like the team version of Cespedes. They have been gifted an incredible home-grown rotation, but they are demonstrating a lack of killer instinct required to make take them over the top. So instead of becoming a legendary team, they will be just good enough.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 21 2016 10:05 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

By OK I mean adequate. By adequate I mean, free of major suck-holes 1-8 in the lineup.

Centerfield Jan 21 2016 10:21 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: By OK I mean adequate. By adequate I mean, free of major suck-holes 1-8 in the lineup. I think they can compete for a playoff spot with that. And I think they will not be "doomed" or anything like that. I just think it sucks that they had the opportunity to do so much more, and for whatever reason, didn't.

Centerfield Jan 21 2016 10:32 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

And for what it's worth, Heyman is now saying 5 years, around $100 million offered by Washington. If that's true, Cespedes is gone. And joins Murphy in Washington.

MFS62 Jan 21 2016 10:47 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Despite the good guy image he projects when interviewed on WFAN, Heyman is a YLDB to the core. The next positive thing he writes about the Mets might just be his first one. He was probably smiling as he typed that with only one hand on the keyboard. Later.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 21 2016 11:05 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Centerfield wrote: I think they can compete for a playoff spot with that. And I think they will not be "doomed" or anything like that. I just think it sucks that they had the opportunity to do so much more, and for whatever reason, didn't. Well we've been thru the reasons. Poor d in cf, 2 corner of already under contract, broke and those projections man. How about Marlon Byrd?

Frayed Knot Jan 22 2016 12:40 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

d'Kong76 wrote: The line-up they showed on MLB show earlier was Yo in CF and batting 4th or 5th. Which means whoever is doing that projection is essentially shunting aside the just-acquired Ben Revere - and I even forgot to include Michael Taylor in my earlier post about the Nats already crowded OF, so that would make it Cespedes + Taylor + Werth + Revere + Harper. That reports have the Nats already making an offer to Cespedes means it's probably true it's also an odd way to spend their allowance in my view, especially for a team that lost two top starters and a reliever over the winter.

Edgy MD Jan 22 2016 01:52 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Yeah, if only I could convince them to acquire another asshole closer like they did at the deadline.

Centerfield Jan 22 2016 04:29 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Ken Rosenthal says Cespedes is torn between the 5 year deal from the Nats, and his desire to stay with the Mets. http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/yoen ... hal-012116 Come on guys. He's a terrific player and he wants to come back. Four years. Team option for 5 with a buyout. I think this gets it done.

Mex17 Jan 22 2016 10:47 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Random observation from the Washington perspective. . .if they had this kind on money to throw around, why not use it to keep Jordan Zimmermann instead?

Mex17 Jan 22 2016 12:36 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/yoen ... hal-012116 OK, so if the Mets go four years, $22 million per year, $12 million deferred, opt-out after two, would that be considered equal value to a 5 year $100 million offer? I'm not saying that the Mets are going to do that, but if they were inclined to move off the three years in order to compete with Washington, that could be a way to do it.

Edgy MD Jan 22 2016 01:28 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

“His pregame routine is off the charts ... off the charts. He has things that he does right before a game in the batting cage. ... When he walks onto that field, he’s legit. “I’ve been around a lot of great players. I’ve seen a lot of great players. This guy, just strictly tools, the five tools – he’s got ‘em all." I read this in Donald Trump's voice.

Frayed Knot Jan 22 2016 01:41 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Mex17 wrote: Random observation from the Washington perspective. . .if they had this kind on money to throw around, why not use it to keep Jordan Zimmermann instead? Maybe because one's a 30 y/o pitcher (in May) and the other is a 30 y/o (supposedly) position player? I think the Nats have more pitching on the way then they do hitters. I also remember reading something last year sometime about how GM Rizzo believes that there's a kind of 'expiration date' for recovered TJ cases, that the ligament replacement procedure has a useful life span of seven years or so on it and Zimmermannnnn is already four-five years into his second go around.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 22 2016 01:42 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Wilmer Flores was interviewed on Mets Hot Stove last night. He was asked what kind of a teammate Yoenis Cespedes was, and he said (I'm afraid I'm paraphrasing here), "He wasn't special. He was a teammate who was there."

Benjamin Grimm Jan 22 2016 01:46 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

This was posted three hours ago: Buster Olney wrote: @Buster_ESPN Sources: Mets, Cespedes discussing an opt-out clause after the 1st year of a three-year deal. Would allow him to test market again Fall '16.

MFS62 Jan 22 2016 02:41 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Benjamin Grimm wrote: This was posted three hours ago: @Buster_ESPN Sources: Mets, Cespedes discussing an opt-out clause after the 1st year of a three-year deal. Would allow him to test market again Fall '16. If the Mets can't sign him to a longer term contract, this would be the best of all possible worlds. It would keep him out of the hands of the Nats. Voltaire would be so proud. Later

Frayed Knot Jan 22 2016 02:43 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I think it would be preferable to a longer term contract.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 22 2016 02:50 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Me too. If they could get him for three years with a one-year opt-out, that would be perfect.

Centerfield Jan 22 2016 02:52 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Me too. If they could get him for three years with a one-year opt-out, that would be perfect. Sign me up for this. And if he walks, FREE DRAFT PICK!

dgwphotography Jan 22 2016 02:56 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

3 years with a one year opt out would be perfect. Must not get excited. Must not get excited. Must not get excited.

Centerfield Jan 22 2016 02:57 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Wilmer Flores was interviewed on Mets Hot Stove last night. He was asked what kind of a teammate Yoenis Cespedes was, and he said (I'm afraid I'm paraphrasing here), "He wasn't special. He was a teammate who was there." I'm trying to figure out how to read this. It could be: "Eh. Whatevers. He's nothing special as a teammate. He's just there, youknowwhati'msayin?" "He's great. Even though he's a superstar, he needs no special treatment. He's always there for you."

Centerfield Jan 22 2016 02:57 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

dgwphotography wrote: 3 years with a one year opt out would be perfect. Must not get excited. Must not get excited. Must not get excited. Much too late. Much too late. Much too late.

RealityChuck Jan 22 2016 02:59 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

If this works out, we have Jason Papelbon to thank. Cespedes certainly noted how Papelbon treats superstars.

Ceetar Jan 22 2016 03:04 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Wilmer Flores was interviewed on Mets Hot Stove last night. He was asked what kind of a teammate Yoenis Cespedes was, and he said (I'm afraid I'm paraphrasing here), "He wasn't special. He was a teammate who was there." I'm trying to figure out how to read this. It could be: "Eh. Whatevers. He's nothing special as a teammate. He's just there, youknowwhati'msayin?" "He's great. Even though he's a superstar, he needs no special treatment. He's always there for you." I figure it's "He was only here three months and we also had 2 other new guys plus David and Trav back and a dozen rookies, he didn't stand out particularly"

Centerfield Jan 22 2016 03:08 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

And now reports are that he's reached out to the Yankees. Dude, he is totally playing up our rivals to make us jealous. I think he really likes us!

Centerfield Jan 22 2016 03:10 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

But all kidding aside, if the reports are true and he really wants to come back to the Mets, then that's awesome. He goes up a bunch of notches in my book. That's partly why I love Wilmer Flores. Wait, maybe he should try crying?

Nymr83 Jan 22 2016 03:11 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Centerfield wrote: And now reports are that he's reached out to the Yankees. Dude, he is totally playing up our rivals to make us jealous. I think he really likes us! Yoenis Cespedes is back in junior high

Ceetar Jan 22 2016 03:33 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Centerfield wrote: And now reports are that he's reached out to the Yankees. Dude, he is totally playing up our rivals to make us jealous. I think he really likes us! I think he enjoyed his time here, but I don't think he particularly 'loves' the Mets any more than he thinks they're his best bet and he's trying to drive up teh price.

d'Kong76 Jan 22 2016 03:47 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Still, the Metsrumblings are getting louder and growing in number.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 22 2016 03:48 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

For some reason, this is starting to remind me of Juan Gonzalez.

d'Kong76 Jan 22 2016 03:51 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Juan Signs! Memories.

Ashie62 Jan 22 2016 06:25 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

d'Kong76 wrote: Still, the Metsrumblings are getting louder and growing in number. All over the uniweb today.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2016 06:36 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Benjamin Grimm wrote: This was posted three hours ago: @Buster_ESPN Sources: Mets, Cespedes discussing an opt-out clause after the 1st year of a three-year deal. Would allow him to test market again Fall '16. I wish the Mets would get their story straight. Because part of the party line is that Cespedes just isn't a good fit given the Mets current makeup (even though Cuddyer's now out of the picture). But now it appears that he'll fit quite nicely so long as the Mets don't have to commit as much money as they thought they would've had to. And how come the Mets never raised this issue of Cespedes not fitting last year when Cespedes was going Bambino on the competition and Cuddyer was an extra outfielder taking up a roster spot? It's always about the money.

Ceetar Jan 22 2016 06:43 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And how come the Mets never raised this issue of Cespedes not fitting last year when Cespedes was going Bambino on the competition and Cuddyer was an extra outfielder taking up a roster spot? It's always about the money. During the stretch between Cespedes first 2-hit game and his last, 8/3 to 9/25 Michael Cuddyer .343/.390/.500 Yoenis Cespedes .301/.344/.650

batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2016 06:47 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: And how come the Mets never raised this issue of Cespedes not fitting last year when Cespedes was going Bambino on the competition and Cuddyer was an extra outfielder taking up a roster spot? It's always about the money. During the stretch between Cespedes first 2-hit game and his last, 8/3 to 9/25 Michael Cuddyer .343/.390/.500 Yoenis Cespedes .301/.344/.650 Doesn't this support my last post? If Cuddyer, who's now retired, was so valuable to the Mets over the last two months of 2015 doesn't this make Cespedes more valuable? More needed? Unless you're trying to make some other point with Cuddyer. I dunno.

Ceetar Jan 22 2016 06:48 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I wasn't really trying to make a point, just pointing out he wasn't quite taking up a roster spot.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2016 06:50 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Ceetar wrote: I wasn't really trying to make a point, just pointing out he wasn't quite taking up a roster spot. Well then how many roster spots was Cuddyer taking up, if not one?

Ceetar Jan 22 2016 06:59 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: I wasn't really trying to make a point, just pointing out he wasn't quite taking up a roster spot. Well then how many roster spots was Cuddyer taking up, if not one? well, he wasn't wasting it anyway for that month.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2016 07:21 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Sports biz report: The stakes for the Mets and Cespedes By Howard Megdal 11:30 a.m. | Jan. 22, 2016 Let's be clear about what the stakes are for the Mets and Yoenis Cespedes. We're not talking about the team using anywhere close to the total amount of revenue power that comes with playing in New York, the largest MLB market even split in two, let alone that plus a 65 percent ownership stake in SNY, the sports network whose exponential rise in value after the trustee for the Madoff victims left Fred Wilpon, Saul Katz and the other partners who own the Mets for financially dead has given them an ability to hang onto their assets. We're not even talking about the Mets using most of the enormous financial windfall that came with their unlikely 2015 World Series run—an estimated $45-60 million in postseason revenue, a 19.6 percent jump in regular season ticket sales, all generating money that Fred Wilpon and Sandy Alderson had promised would be invested back into the team. No, even signing Yoenis Cespedes would put payroll for 2016 somewhere in the $130 million range. Put another way, that would leave the Mets on par with the Kansas City Royals, in a metro area approximately 1/10 the size of New York. It would leave them in the bottom half of MLB payrolls. That's how enormous the constraint has been from Mets ownership diverting payroll to finance debt for years. It has gotten bigger and more noticeable due to the 2015 windfall, but comparing Mets payroll to past Mets payroll doesn't capture the scope of it. Comparing them to the rest of baseball does. With the team's elite, cost-controlled young pitching, the Mets are still contenders in 2016. However, the potential of losing Yoenis Cespedes, a big reason the Mets finally found adequate offense in the final two months of the season, would only happen if the team failed to exercise its most basic due diligence as a competitive baseball team and business, and instead gave itself over once more to serve as a vehicle to service Wilpon/Katz debt. That the Washington Nationals, a team with a larger payroll already, a lack of television revenue due to an unfortunate deal made with MLB that has them in litigation, and a better starting outfield than the Mets have right now are willing to make a five-year offer to Cespedes says everything about the quality of player involved. That the Mets won't have to even match the Nationals, a rare thing when players generally go to the highest bidder, but simply get competitive, only further emphasizes the potential missed opportunity were they to let him go. Cespedes wants to stay in New York, reportedly willing to consider a shorter deal for the chance to do so. Meanwhile, the Mets have tried mightily to make it politically tenable to lose Cespedes, leaking to the Daily News information about his timeliness and smoking habits. They've attempted to portray him as a positional misfit—this, despite using Cespedes in center field during the team's glorious 2015 run, despite signing Alejandro de Aza, a non-center fielder, as a budget replacement to pair with the elbow-compromised Juan Lagares, despite Curtis Granderson in right field having just two years remaining on his contract, opening a spot for Cespedes in 2018, despite Granderson and left fielder Michael Conforto both hitting lefty, meaning that Cespedes can spell both of them against lefties for the next two years, despite indications that the designated hitter could come to the National League as soon as 2017, opening up a spot for Cespedes or another hitter next year. There's only one argument against the Mets signing Yoenis Cespedes. It isn't competitive, it isn't philosophical, it isn't logical. It comes down to whether the Mets owners are going to act in a minimally responsible way as stewards of a big-league baseball team. Sign Cespedes, and the team is still woefully shy of the basic fiscal upkeep that would come close to maximizing a team in New York. But fail to do so, in this moment, with this player and this team's very specific needs and opportunity, and it won't be any clearer than it is now precisely how damaging the owners' financial problems are to this baseball team. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/c ... d-cespedes

Benjamin Grimm Jan 22 2016 07:42 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

batmagadanleadoff wrote: But now it appears that he'll fit quite nicely so long as the Mets don't have to commit as much money as they thought they would've had to. It may be more about committing the years than the money. I don't discount that money is an issue, but it's one thing to have Cespedes jamming up center field for one season than for five. I would try to structure the three-year contract as something like 25-16-16, if he'll go for it, of course. Yoenis would then be guaranteed $57 million if he sticks around, but will have incentive to opt out, if that's what the Mets are not-so-secretly hoping he'll do.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2016 07:46 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Benjamin Grimm wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: But now it appears that he'll fit quite nicely so long as the Mets don't have to commit as much money as they thought they would've had to. It may be more about committing the years than the money. I don't discount that money is an issue, but it's one thing to have Cespedes jamming up center field for one season than for five. I would try to structure the three-year contract as something like 25-16-16, if he'll go for it, of course. Yoenis would then be guaranteed $57 million if he sticks around, but will have incentive to opt out, if that's what the Mets are not-so-secretly hoping he'll do. I definitely see your point. Me, personally, I'd prefer Cespedes for three rather than five years, too -- something that I would've never imagined was possible before the recent reports. But if Cespedes (allegedly) doesn't fit, then he doesn't fit. Whether it's one year or five or anything in between. Anyway, it's not worth killing this point to death. We all have the Mets number and know what's really going on.

Centerfield Jan 22 2016 07:56 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Correct. It's about the money. It's always been about the money, and nothing but the money. If it wasn't about the money, they would have pursued Heyward, or Upton, or any of the other front-line players available this winter. And if it were about the "right fit", whatever that means, they never would have signed De Aza. You know what I hate about this winter? I found myself rooting for a four year deal for Zobrist and a four year deal for Cespedes even though I think these are not great deals, because the Mets give the impression that if they don't do this, they won't do anything to improve the club. There were a ton of great options available this winter, but there was zero chance that the Mets would even think about them. And for the record, even if they sign Cespedes, they will still be woefully short in terms of payroll.

TransMonk Jan 22 2016 09:10 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It may be more about committing the years than the money. Bingo.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2016 09:35 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

TransMonk wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: It may be more about committing the years than the money. Bingo. Because more years costs more money.

d'Kong76 Jan 22 2016 09:55 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Fine, but in this case more years more foolish too.

TransMonk Jan 22 2016 10:05 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

batmagadanleadoff wrote: TransMonk wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: It may be more about committing the years than the money. Bingo. Because more years costs more money. Yes, but it's "dumb" money. I don't want Cespedes in four years at that price.

Mex17 Jan 22 2016 10:08 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

TransMonk wrote: Yes, but it's "dumb" money. I don't want Cespedes in four years at that price. He will be 33 in the fourth year, that's "over the hill" now?

TransMonk Jan 22 2016 10:18 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Mex17 wrote: TransMonk wrote: Yes, but it's "dumb" money. I don't want Cespedes in four years at that price. He will be 33 in the fourth year, that's "over the hill" now? That's not what I said. I just don't want HIM at 33 at $20M+. I'm not 100% sold on Cespedes...certainly not long term. He'll be blocking up the payroll and a roster spot at a time when I believe there could be better (and cheaper) options available. I'm all in on him for next year. Even three years wouldn't bug me. After that, I believe he would be be a liability rather than an asset.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2016 10:30 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

TransMonk wrote: TransMonk wrote: Yes, but it's "dumb" money. I don't want Cespedes in four years at that price. He will be 33 in the fourth year, that's "over the hill" now? That's not what I said. I just don't want HIM at 33 at $20M+. I'm not 100% sold on Cespedes...certainly not long term. He'll be blocking up the payroll and a roster spot at a time when I believe there could be better (and cheaper) options available. I'm all in on him for next year. Even three years wouldn't bug me. After that, I believe he would be be a liability rather than an asset. $20M is chump change to the Dodgers. And New York's a better market. If these Wilpons knew a third as much about the business of baseball as they know about real estate, these problems wouldn't exist. Anyone who thinks that a NY team with a bottom tier payroll can't hack a $20M outlay four years from now, well that's their lowered expectations doing the thinking. Jeez, I wouldn't be surprised if, four years from now, $20M wouldn't even buy a Jon Niese type pitcher.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2016 10:35 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

d'Kong76 wrote: Fine, but in this case more years more foolish too. Maybe. But that should be a problem for the Pittsburghs and Kansas Cities of baseball. A big team market that can't hack what Cespedes wants for five years? The payroll should be double what it is, but instead everyone's been so bullied and worn down into submission that they think that it's all the money in the world if the Mets increase payroll by another ten or fifteen million. If the Mets get Cespedes on their terms, it'd be great. But if they lose out on Cespedes because they didn't match some other team's five year offer, look out below.

Edgy MD Jan 22 2016 10:39 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Speaking for myself, I am not worn down into submission.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2016 10:44 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Edgy MD wrote: Speaking for myself, I am not worn down into submission. I know.

TransMonk Jan 22 2016 10:58 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Pissing on $20M is stupid no matter what city you live in.

Zvon Jan 22 2016 11:54 PM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

It's not official yet but, ugh, shit.

Zvon Jan 23 2016 01:22 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I was only going by an Olney tweet. I would REALLY like to be wrong.

Centerfield Jan 23 2016 01:23 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Zvon wrote: I was only going by an Olney tweet. I would REALLY like to be wrong. Which one?

Zvon Jan 23 2016 01:25 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Nats, 83 mill, 3 yrs. He said it's not official. Haven't heard a thing since.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 23 2016 01:35 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 23 2016 01:35 AM

NYC, DE BLASIO BATTENING DOWN HATCHES About Battening, Though... What Does This Mean For Mets-Cespedes Talks? Here's the thing... who's leaking the Mets-talk talk? I feel like if it's more than a two-team race for his services, Roc Nation doesn't leak the willing-to-go-shorter thing intentionally, because it only weakens his position, if anything. ("Well, if he'll consider three-with-an-opt-out... what about our FOUR with an opt-out?") A leak from Roc Nation only makes sense if he's leveraging it to get more money or an opt-out from the Nats. If the leak comes from the Mets, well... it's the usual "See, Here's Proof We're Trying (But Are Kinda Sabotaging Our 'Negotiation' By Telling You This)" messaging that #MetsTwitter and their ilk are always seeing on the wall, isn't it?

d'Kong76 Jan 23 2016 01:35 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

That's a lot of money over three years!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 23 2016 01:39 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Zvon wrote: Nats, 83 mill, 3 yrs. He said it's not official. Haven't heard a thing since. Where are you seeing this? He hasn't Tweeted a thing about it since he reported the Mets-talk shebang.

Zvon Jan 23 2016 02:05 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Zvon wrote: Nats, 83 mill, 3 yrs. He said it's not official. Haven't heard a thing since. Where are you seeing this? He hasn't Tweeted a thing about it since he reported the Mets-talk shebang. I saw two reports on fb. One showed his tweet. I don't think Onley quoted the $. He just said it was a done deal to be announced tonight.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 23 2016 02:11 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Zvon wrote: Zvon wrote: Nats, 83 mill, 3 yrs. He said it's not official. Haven't heard a thing since. Where are you seeing this? He hasn't Tweeted a thing about it since he reported the Mets-talk shebang. I saw two reports on fb. One showed his tweet. I don't think Onley quoted the $. He just said it was a done deal to be announced tonight. You may have been had, bud. Not ANYWHERE on his feed, and I've seen a few references from verified baseball-press-types to fake Cespedes and Olney feeds.

Zvon Jan 23 2016 02:30 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Nats, 83 mill, 3 yrs. He said it's not official. Haven't heard a thing since. Where are you seeing this? He hasn't Tweeted a thing about it since he reported the Mets-talk shebang. I saw two reports on fb. One showed his tweet. I don't think Onley quoted the $. He just said it was a done deal to be announced tonight. You may have been had, bud. Not ANYWHERE on his feed, and I've seen a few references from verified baseball-press-types to fake Cespedes and Olney feeds. Really! I did click on the tweet and it didn't take me to twitter, just to an image of the tweet, which I thought unusual. Hey, I'm glad. I'd rather this not be my very first CPF scoop.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 23 2016 02:45 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

I mean, I have a feeling that something like that might be what he's driving for (if he's got a REALLY outsized estimation of his worth and/or next year's market) if his team leaked the Mets news-- either more money on the five-year OR a higher-AAV version of the Met offer... from the Nats.

Edgy MD Jan 23 2016 02:52 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Be cautioned. There's been a LOT of reports out there of guys tweeting from fake accounts, pretending to beat writers.

d'Kong76 Jan 23 2016 03:02 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

#hashbagged

Centerfield Jan 23 2016 03:06 AM Re: Re-Sign Cespedes

Edgy MD wrote: Be cautioned. There's been a LOT of reports out there of guys tweeting from fake accounts, pretending to beat writers. Talk about losers. When I pretend to be someone I'm not, I'm going for movie stars. The bassist for Loverboy. The guy who voiced Jabba. I'm like way, way down my list before I reach Andy Martino.