Master Index of Archived Threads


Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Benjamin Grimm Nov 12 2015 07:32 PM

Mike Puma wrote: Ben Zobrist is clearly on the Mets’ radar, and team officials plan to soon speak with the veteran utility man’s agent. Mike Puma wrote: Whether the Mets pursue Zobrist will depend on Daniel Murphy’s situation. Murphy has until 5 p.m. on Friday to accept or reject the club’s qualifying offer of $15.8 million for next year. Murphy is expected to reject the offer to pursue a multi-year deal elsewhere, but the Mets hadn’t received an answer as of Thursday Puma also says that the Mets may non-tender Ruben Tejada, which would save them about $2.5 million, and instead let Matt Reynolds replace him on the roster. (That gives me a sense of déjà vu for some reason.) Mike Puma wrote: Ruben Tejada is not a slam dunk to be tendered a contract as team officials consider the possibility of giving Matt Reynolds a shot at shortstop with Wilmer Flores if the Mets don’t acquire somebody.

Zvon Nov 12 2015 08:54 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I like Zobrist. I'm going to wait til tomorrow night to comment, when I'm more emotionally unstable.

Ceetar Nov 13 2015 08:54 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

It'd be awkward when ambles across the field on Opening Day and gets a ring celebrating his current team's demise. I assume he gets cheers in pregame roster announcements though right?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 13 2015 08:56 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

One would imagine. After the first RBI gapper, there'll probably be a little less clapping, though. A lot of interest here, from a lot of precincts. Think he goes much higher than 3/33 or thereabouts? Would you go much higher, if it meant much less spending in other need areas?

Centerfield Nov 13 2015 09:07 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I view Zobrist as a better version of Daniel Murphy. Except more expensive, and a lot older. I guess the key questions will be how long is the deal, and how likely are we see a dropoff now that he is 35+. I think you first have to resolve the Murphy situation (which we expect by 5 p.m. today). Then you have to see what he will cost you. Buzz around the league is that there are lots of teams bidding. Including the Royals, with whom he just won a championship. And I think you also have to take into account Dilson Herrera. The guy has hit at every level, and most in the organization say he has nothing more to prove in AAA. Good glove, pretty decent speed, and has already shown some pop in his limited time in the bigs. Last year, he put up a .677 OPS. You'd hope that would progress to the low (or even mid?) .700's in 2016. http://www.baseball-reference.com/regis ... rrer000dil If you sign Zobrist, you likely get better production for next year. (You'd think Zobrist would be high .700's, low .800) But you basically block Herrera for the length of the Zobrist contract.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 13 2015 09:11 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 13 2015 09:14 AM

Not necessarily. Zobrist plays virtually every position on the diamond, and defensively, he does corner outfield almost as well as he does the right side of the infield. Even in terms of versatility, he's one up on Murphy; he'll be able to get games in spelling Flores, Duda, Wright and Curtis/Conforto, along with any semi-regular second base gig.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 13 2015 09:12 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I can deal with Zobee. Depend on price as you noted.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 13 2015 09:14 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I think I might rather have Murphy for one year than Zobrist for three. I like the idea of Herrera at second base, but it's much easier to hand a starting job to a rookie in a season where you're more likely than not to finish with about 70 to 75 wins. In a year when you hope to win 95, you can't do that without a Plan B. I really don't know what the best course of action is. Adding a bat to the outfield and leaving the middle infield to Flores, Tejada, Reynolds, and Herrera might actually be the best choice, but I'd be very reluctant to commit to that at this point.

Centerfield Nov 13 2015 09:15 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Not necessarily. Zobrist plays virtually every position on the diamond, and defensively, he does corner outfield almost as well as he does the right side of the infield. Even in terms of versatility, he's one up on Murphy; he'll be able to get games in spelling Flores, Duda, Wright and Curtis/Conforto, along with any semi-regular second base gig. Wow I'm just on fire lately. Never mind. As you were.

Ceetar Nov 13 2015 09:23 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I've always liked Zobrist. He's better than Murphy at basically everything except maybe baserunning, which in aggregate makes him much better. Next season is his age 35 season. so three years is 35,36,37. Not horrible. He only played 126 games this year, because he tore some cartilage in his knee sliding into a base in a game in KC. But he came back fine, played well. And other than that he's played a full slate of games every year since 2009. Seems durable. Of course, age catches up with everyone in a hurry, but seems like as good a bet as anyone. I'd be willing to take on a 4th year, preferably option-based, but even so, for his age 38 season if that's what it takes. I think the ability to move him around the field to fill holes is underrated.

Centerfield Nov 13 2015 09:38 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think I might rather have Murphy for one year than Zobrist for three. I like the idea of Herrera at second base, but it's much easier to hand a starting job to a rookie in a season where you're more likely than not to finish with about 70 to 75 wins. In a year when you hope to win 95, you can't do that without a Plan B. I really don't know what the best course of action is. Adding a bat to the outfield and leaving the middle infield to Flores, Tejada, Reynolds, and Herrera might actually be the best choice, but I'd be very reluctant to commit to that at this point. This is exactly what I was thinking. And handing a job to a rookie is much more palatable when you have added Upton/Heyward to your lineup than if you have Gerardo Parra. I think Herrera will do pretty good if given the chance. If not, I'd like to see them re-up Kelly Johnson as insurance/platoon partner. Kelly can also give David Wright a blow. Though you may have to pay extra for that.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 13 2015 09:44 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

That's why they have a BJ's Clubhouse!

Centerfield Nov 13 2015 09:49 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Benjamin Grimm wrote: That's why they have a BJ's Clubhouse! Yes. Discount BJ's. Typical Wilpons.

Farmer Ted Nov 13 2015 10:44 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

"Next season is his age 35 season. so three years is 35,36,37. Not horrible" Michael Cuddyer, age 36 and 37 seasons. Jut sayin.

Ceetar Nov 13 2015 11:03 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Farmer Ted wrote: "Next season is his age 35 season. so three years is 35,36,37. Not horrible" Michael Cuddyer, age 36 and 37 seasons. Jut sayin. two different players. Not really a 'skill' but Zobrist has been healthy.

Edgy MD Nov 13 2015 11:17 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Thing is, for the same reasons that the Mets can use Zobrist, 30 out of 30 teams can similarly use him. He'll come at a dear price (in $ and years) for a dude at the end of his career.

seawolf17 Nov 13 2015 11:30 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Let someone else overpay him -- he's one of those "fits everywhere" guys who someone will give way too much money to. And yes, he plays "everywhere," but nowhere particularly well, and played only four positions last year.

dgwphotography Nov 13 2015 12:11 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Maybe if he was 30, but for what he'll cost at 35? Pass.

d'Kong76 Nov 13 2015 12:14 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I'd be very disappointed if they go the aarp route again.

Edgy MD Nov 13 2015 12:26 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Well, that's another reason folks trade. It's a rare bird that hits the free agent market on the bright side of 30.

d'Kong76 Nov 13 2015 12:28 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Well, I've already said I'd trade The Harvester for the right young bird.

Zvon Nov 13 2015 06:06 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I'm too emotionally unstable to comment tonight. ;)

MFS62 Nov 14 2015 06:30 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Zobrist is a valuable asset to a contending team. Worth kicking the tires to see what he'd cost. As mentioned in this thread, length of contract (up to three years) shouldn't be a major factor at his age because speed is not a big part of his game. Later

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 17 2015 01:04 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Zobrist may be a bridge too far... financially, writes Kristie Ackert. ... a source who confirmed the Mets have reached out to the free agent cautioned that the market for the 34-year old utility man will be robust and may be too costly for the National League champions. An industry source said Monday they expect Zobrist, coming off a World Series championship with the Royals, could command at least a three- or four-year deal worth $40 to $50 million. Well, you don't want to shop at the robust market, at least not on a Saturday or Sunday. Those checkout lines, they're murder. (Were I Sandy, I'd JUMP at 3/40M for Zobrist. I'd do that WELL before I'd go, say, 5/110 on Cespedes.)

Centerfield Nov 17 2015 03:58 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I guess on it's face it's disappointing, but I rarely see teams saying "Yes, Zobrist's initial demands fall squarely in our budget!" I'll hope that this is posturing and that a reasonably priced Zobrist is a possibility, and that if they forego this, it's by choice and not by constraint.

Fman99 Nov 19 2015 11:10 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Very interested as per some Twitter hippie douche on the NY Times payroll.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 19 2015 09:13 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

On Mets Hot Stove today, David Lennon of Newsday said that Zobrist is the Mets number one free agent target.

Edgy MD Nov 20 2015 06:17 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

He was allowed to see the big whiteboard, was he?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 20 2015 07:16 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Not any more, he isn't. They'll need to splash the pot to get him in white-and-blue/grey-and-blue/blue alternates/blue alternate alternates, ah reckon. He just strikes me as the sort of guy, values-wise, who might not see playing/living in New York as value-added, exactly.

Edgy MD Nov 20 2015 08:26 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

While Zobrist may be the kind of guy every team needs, I tend to think of guys like him as the guy most teams can grow, given a little thoughtfulness and a little luck. Turner looked like it. He even was for a little bit. Then he got fat and atrophied. So they dumped him and looked to Satin. It didn't work out, and oh, shit, Turner DID work out for his next team. Well, let's look into what we overlooked earlier while we move on to Campbell. Shit, Campbell. Not working out, yeah, but I always think there's a surfeit of guys who can hit .275 for you, give you good, battling at-bats, draw a few walks, and play multiple positions with competence. Identifying them is tricky, but maybe it's better to be disappointed in Campbell and moving on than to be disappointed in Campbell $10 million replacement. It's hard to argue for, since the Mets have had only sporadic luck with such guys since hitting pay dirt twice in 2001 with McEwing and Relaford, but I tend think he's just floating out there for the taking. Maybe Alex Castellanos would have been that guy.

Centerfield Nov 20 2015 08:31 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I think, Born-Again Turner aside, Ben Zobrist is head and shoulders better than the other guys you mention in your post. But your point is well-taken. I think our version of Zobrist is Murphy. And he's younger and less expensive. I think the question we have to ask is who will be better over these next few years. Early 30's Murphy or late 30's Zobrist.

d'Kong76 Nov 20 2015 08:50 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Centerfield wrote: I think the question we have to ask is who will be better over these next few years. Early 30's Murphy or late 30's Zobrist. I'm starting to hope Murph wants to stay a Met and something gets worked out that isn't too nutty in years and financially. I feel this way so much I'm gonna go post this in his thread too! What would next year's Mets be without some Muffy? Moiph? The Muffster? Watching him rake in the rarefied air of Coor's Field would really suck.

Edgy MD Nov 20 2015 08:55 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Centerfield wrote: I think, Born-Again Turner aside, Ben Zobrist is head and shoulders better than the other guys you mention in your post. But your point is well-taken. Certainly, I just don't have $40 million worth of confidence that he will be over the next four years. Some other Zobrist will sprout up and get trampled under foot without a chance to shine. To SHINE! Murphy vs. Zobrist? I'm surprised to hear myself say this, but I'm leaning toward Murphy. Maybe that's a devil-you-know issue. Maybe that's a holdover from my last post. If it's a choice, I'd prefer they went for neither and threw all the allotted money into the Cespedes chest.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 20 2015 09:15 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 20 2015 10:04 AM

[Dupe]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 20 2015 09:16 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I get the Maybe Murph argument; after all, Murph made some (apparently sustainable) significant offensive-approach adjustments last year, and we have a very good idea of the floor of what he'll give us over the life of the next deal... it's just that it'll be a more expensive version of Same Old Murph. If you've got significant doubts about Zobrist's aging curve, I get that, and I get Murph as a devil-you-know alternative. But if you're worried about aging, and bang for buck, holy SHIT is Cespedes the wrong basket in which to store your $100M+ eggs. Deficient on-base skills, highly BABIP-and-athleticism-dependent value... the floor on a large-scale contract with this sort of skill set, well, it's hard to see the bottom. This is the kind of guy that falls off a fucking cliff once age hits, and the kind of guy who will likely provide below-AAV value in off- or normal years, health-and-aging issues aside.

Vic Sage Nov 20 2015 09:16 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

i'm always dubious at throwing big money at 35+ utility guys, even very good ones. Yes, he's been a better player than Murphy, but not HUGELY better, and Murphy is likely to maintain his production over the next few years, while Zobrist is past his expiration date. That being said, i'd prefer they threw the money, not at Murphy OR Cespedes (whose pitch-chasing hackitude became quite clear after his 6-week Aug-Sept burst), but at Heyward or Upton.

Centerfield Nov 20 2015 09:22 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Especially since Dilson Herrera can possibly be that guy that Edgy is talking about. And if he's not yet ready, we can sign a cheap veteran like Kelly Johnson as insurance (doubles as Wright insurance too). Definitely go Heyward and Upton.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 20 2015 09:28 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 20 2015 06:48 PM

I think I agree. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the guys with Mets business cards do.

Centerfield Nov 20 2015 09:40 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

This is why we should be raising hell! You know, getting up from our chair abruptly, knocking over pen holders! We should also cross our arms and tap our foot like we really mean it.

Edgy MD Nov 20 2015 09:47 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I think I agree too. I mean, they have two capable established infielders in Tejada and Flores. Neither is blowing your mind, but they serve as starters and have possible room to improve. They have two coming, possibly-exciting league-ready middle infielders pushing them in Reynolds and Herrera. And they have some meaningful prospects (Checchini, Rosario...) behind that. Heyward for the outfield and let Johnson or his like try and be our Zobrist. Secondary selections? Maybe, but market-savviness is nothing to be ashamed of.

Centerfield Nov 20 2015 09:53 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Edgy MD wrote: I think I agree too. I mean, they have two capable established infielders in Tejada and Flores. Neither is blowing your mind, but they serve as starters and have possible room to improve. They have two coming, possibly-exciting league-ready middle infielders pushing them in Reynolds and Herrera. And they have some meaningful prospects (Checchini, Rosario...) behind that. Heyward for the outfield and let Johnson or his like try and be our Zobrist. Secondary selections? Maybe, but market-savviness is nothing to be ashamed of.

d'Kong76 Nov 20 2015 09:54 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I waffle hourly, like Bill Clinton on crack.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 20 2015 10:06 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

CLINTON: So, that's Sub-Saharan leadership taken care of. What else, Jim? FOUNDATION OFFICER: So, the next order of business is something pretty pressing; we've been putting off the discussion of the aid escrow account for a VERY long time, and things have rea-- [iPhone buzzing] CLINTON: Excuse me, ladies and gents. [Sprints to waffle cubby]

Ceetar Nov 20 2015 11:04 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

the "try to be our Zobrist" thing is faulty. No one's going to be our Zobrist because Zobrist is special. We can try to find/use/keep a utility guy that's a decent option, but that's a different discussion. A guy like Kelly Johnson that you don't really have to play, and don't really want as a regular starter, but is a perfectly acceptable replacement/fill-in/etc. But he's not.._good_. Zobrist is a legitimate hitter that improves the lineup. Zobrist doesn't just improve the lineup, he improves it with the added flexibility of being able to be maneuvered defensively to pick the best other player to put in the lineup too. You could even just think of Zobrist as a 2B and it's a reasonable move.

Edgy MD Nov 20 2015 11:55 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Ceetar wrote: Zobrist doesn't just improve the lineup, he improves it with the added flexibility of being able to be maneuvered defensively to pick the best other player to put in the lineup too. I understand. I love versatility and I think managers under-utilize it when they have it.

d'Kong76 Nov 20 2015 12:40 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Just for posterity, put me down for a NO on Zobrist. He ain't that special. Mock me in September if he's the golden child.

Ceetar Nov 20 2015 12:46 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

d'Kong76 wrote: Just for posterity, put me down for a NO on Zobrist. He ain't that special. Mock me in September if he's the golden child. if the Mets had Zobrist instead of Murphy they'd be world champs.

d'Kong76 Nov 20 2015 12:50 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Fantasize what you like, he's old in 2016 and even older in 2020.

d'Kong76 Nov 20 2015 01:24 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Just for more posterity, Ceets... Zobrist would have made the Mets not lose the WS 4 games to 1? Tell me in my right ear, that's my good one.

Ceetar Nov 20 2015 01:27 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

d'Kong76 wrote: Just for more posterity, Ceets... Zobrist would have made the Mets not lose the WS 4 games to 1? Tell me in my right ear, that's my good one. I mean, the games were close and Daniel Murphy sucked and made critical errors and Zobrist was good. It's not really a stretch to see it going differently if you swapped them.

d'Kong76 Nov 20 2015 01:37 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Please be reasonable, no player is solely responsible for losing four games out of five... nor would BZ change that so dramatically.

A Boy Named Seo Nov 20 2015 01:37 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Ceetar wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Just for more posterity, Ceets... Zobrist would have made the Mets not lose the WS 4 games to 1? Tell me in my right ear, that's my good one. I mean, the games were close and Daniel Murphy sucked and made critical errors and Zobrist was good. It's not really a stretch to see it going differently if you swapped them. I'm no rules expert, but I don't think MLB allows trades turning the World Series and I seem to recall Murph being kind of important to us in the getting-to-the-World-Series part.

Ceetar Nov 20 2015 01:48 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

d'Kong76 wrote: Please be reasonable, no player is solely responsible for losing four games out of five... nor would BZ change that so dramatically. I'm clearly exaggerating but having another player be good rather than bad would definitely have made things a hell of a lot closer. Zobrist is a hell of a lot better than Murphy and I'm just trying to understand why everyone is underrating him. Hell, his career OPS+ is better than Heyward too. The only real drawback positionally is third where you'd obviously like to have someone to backup Wright that doesn't suck. but the biggest question marks in terms of offensive production is MI and LF and Zobrist can play all of those. And he's going to provide more oWAR than Flores and Tejada. There's a fair chance that's true even in Zobrist's age 37 2019.

d'Kong76 Nov 20 2015 01:57 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Exaggerating, backpedaling, waffling... gonna be a long winter.

Ceetar Nov 20 2015 02:12 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

d'Kong76 wrote: Exaggerating, backpedaling, waffling... gonna be a long winter. Oh, cause that's different from the regular season or anybody else here? Zobrist is awesome. He's one of the best free agent hitters the Mets can get, plays good defense, and fits in positions they don't have locked down. And it's not like he's likely to get 6/150. The risk, inherent in any player really, of him not being good at the end of the contract isn't the end of the world to eat, even for the Mets.

d'Kong76 Nov 20 2015 02:16 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Special and now awesome! Don't get sore, I'm busting some plums here a little. Please admit you have him on 4 of your 5 fantasy teams.

Ceetar Nov 20 2015 02:28 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

d'Kong76 wrote: Special and now awesome! Don't get sore, I'm busting some plums here a little. Please admit you have him on 4 of your 5 fantasy teams. didn't get him this year. But yes, I've been drafting him for years. Was a great SS option for a long time.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 20 2015 03:43 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I don't mind Zobrist -- he'd be a valuable guy to have: Much better than Johnson, every bit as good as Muffy, plus a better glove. I do wonder though if he'd go for a reserve-type role where we have Flores and Hererra as 2B options already and a need for a new everyday SS. Him & Cuddy is a dangerous bench with good veteranism.

d'Kong76 Nov 20 2015 04:07 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I don't think the people who are loudly banging the BZ drum are looking at him as a role player. The him and Cuddster thing are a different kind of dangerous to me... and not of the good variety.

Frayed Knot Nov 21 2015 03:48 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Zobrist is a hell of a lot better than Murphy and I'm just trying to understand why everyone is underrating him. Not under-rating him, just rating him in the light of a contract that will (most likely) run for multiple years starting the month he turns 35. He's a lower average hitter than Murphy though with better OBP skills and somewhat more power: reached 20 HRs 3 times but two of those years were exactly 20 and hasn't topped 13 since 2012. The one season where he hit 27 is now seven years in the rearview mirror. And, yes, he's a better fielder/runner than Muff but is also a full four years older.

Rockin' Doc Nov 21 2015 06:59 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Ceetar wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Just for posterity, put me down for a NO on Zobrist. He ain't that special. Mock me in September if he's the golden child. if the Mets had Zobrist instead of Murphy they'd be world champs. Not likely. If the Mets had Zobrist (rather than Murphy) they likely wouldn't have gotten past the Dodgers.

Edgy MD Nov 21 2015 08:06 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

There's that, as long as we're going for the small sample size argument. And, of course, any measuring of the two against one another shouldn't be based on how they each looked for a single week in November, but how they project to perform over the next three-to-four years. I'd certainly call that an open question.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 29 2015 08:11 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Several news stories today are reiterating that Zobrist is the number one Mets target this offseason. Here are two tweets from Ken Rosenthal: Zobrist #Mets’ No. 1 target, sources say. #Nationals also in, along with #Braves, #SFGiants, others. #Royals not expected to offer same $$$. Sources: Zobrist market likely to become more defined in next few days. Willingness to guarantee fourth year likely will be deciding factor.

Nymr83 Nov 29 2015 08:28 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Zobrist is a hell of a lot better than Murphy and I'm just trying to understand why everyone is underrating him. Not under-rating him, just rating him in the light of a contract that will (most likely) run for multiple years starting the month he turns 35. He's a lower average hitter than Murphy though with better OBP skills and somewhat more power: reached 20 HRs 3 times but two of those years were exactly 20 and hasn't topped 13 since 2012. The one season where he hit 27 is now seven years in the rearview mirror. And, yes, he's a better fielder/runner than Muff but is also a full four years older. I would suspect that the percentage of hitters who (1) hit 20 homers three times before age 32 (2) didn't hit 20 homers in their age 32, 33 or 34 seasons, and (3) ever hit 20 homers again is likely <10%. Zobrist would be amazing as a 1-year rental like the Moises Alou contract we once gave out, 2 years would be ok. but he isnt going to get that deal and isnt going to be someone's super-sub or Kelly Johnson replacement. he's going to get paid to be someone starter for at least 3 years, likely 4. The question needs to be: are you willing to invest in that? i'm probably not.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 29 2015 09:45 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I'm curious as to why the Mets are so hot for this guy. I mean, he brings a lot to the table -- versatility, switch-hittability etc. But what do they envision for deploying him? At 2B with Flores? As a platoon corner guy? Shortstop?!?

Edgy MD Nov 29 2015 09:53 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I'm all there too. The Mets were so cool to the marketplace for middle infielders the last two years, so why is the oldest option in the third year suddenly a must-have, now that they may have Flores established and Herrera on the verge? Do they think Tejada's injury is debilitating? And even if they do, they're targeting a bad shortstop option. So it's Flores back to short and Z at second with Herrera standing by. I find that somewhat less-than-ideal, but it does allow them to pivot as injuries develop.

Nymr83 Nov 29 2015 10:43 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

also allowing you to pivot: not committing large sums of money over multiple years to an aging 2B who can't play SS and spending the money as the needs actually develop in-season (such as by eating a contract for a decent player that a non-contender doesn't want anymore)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 29 2015 11:24 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Mr. Bad Shortstop Option has served nearly 2000 career innings there-- averaging 30-plus games a year from 2008-2014-- for the defensively-minded Fighting Maddons. He's also played a more-than-credible corner OF, faked 200 innings of CENTER, and inspired the Fielding Bible's creation of a multi-position player award with his all-around defensive solidity. Injury cover, Wright Rules flexibility, double-switchitude... assuming he doesn't fall off a cliff, production-wise, he allows you QUITE a bit of pivot. (Including-- depending on new contract AAV-- in-season trade value should plans change.)

Edgy MD Nov 30 2015 07:16 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Nymr83 wrote: also allowing you to pivot: not committing large sums of money over multiple years to an aging 2B who can't play SS and spending the money as the needs actually develop in-season (such as by eating a contract for a decent player that a non-contender doesn't want anymore) This is true. It's worth noting that it took the Mets two months to start adding players last season though, even though their needs appeared earlier, as the trade market hadn't yet developed.

Nymr83 Nov 30 2015 08:23 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

yeah, and good things came to those who waited :)

MFS62 Nov 30 2015 08:40 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Mr. Bad Shortstop Option has served nearly 2000 career innings there-- averaging 30-plus games a year from 2008-2014-- for the defensively-minded Fighting Maddons. He's also played a more-than-credible corner OF, faked 200 innings of CENTER, and inspired the Fielding Bible's creation of a multi-position player award with his all-around defensive solidity. Speaking of more than credible, when he was playing for the MFYs we heard that Cletis Boyer was the top defensive third baseman in baseball, even better than (gasp!) Brooks Robinson. I recently looked it up. Brooks' was better (.971) Clete's career fielding pct was .965. I know there are now better ways to measure defense, but that was all we had. So that number has stuck in my head as the number against which all others third basemen were measured. Last time I looked, Ben Zobrist's is .966! IMO if either have to play outfield it would not be a good situation. I still prefer re-signing Murphy if the money is comparable, because of his age. But I would be ok if they signed Ben, too. Later

Frayed Knot Nov 30 2015 08:57 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

In 10 ML seasons -- 7 full-time + 3 partials -- Zobrist has logged the equivalent of one-plus year as a SS [196 games started - 167 complete games] But more than half of his time there (109 starts) came in his first three seasons [2006-08] as a 25, 26 & 27 y/o. Since then he's logged no time at all there in some years ('10, '11, & '15) and more than 25 starts only once (47 in 2012) which gives you the idea that he was looked at more as an emergency/injury fill-in than anything else. And, just as a reminder, he turns 35 in May when he'll be in Month #2 of a deal running three years at minimum and quite likely four. Which isn't to say that you don't talk to him or about him, just don't do so with the idea that he's going to solve our SS dilemma. Ideally he'd be your 3rd option there.

d'Kong76 Nov 30 2015 12:02 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/p ... oreseeable

d'Kong76 Nov 30 2015 12:17 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/baseba ... ist/npYL7/

Vic Sage Nov 30 2015 04:13 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Asdrubel Cabrera? No thanks. he's not bad, but he's not very good anymore either. Middling power, limited range. I'd rather have Zobrist, even at his age. But i don't want Zobe either... at least not for more than a year or 2. Actually, come to think of it, that would be fine. Ok, sign Zobe for 4 years, and even if he sucks toward the end, we're a NY franchise and can afford to carry an expensive UT guy or dump him if necessary. Zobe = 4/$60m Heyward = 7/$130m C'mon, Fred, put on your big boy pants. Sign Zobe and Heyward and we'll be good to go. It would probably put our payroll at around $120M next year (or thereabouts), which still wouldn't have been in the top 10 last year.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 30 2015 04:50 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 30 2015 05:38 PM

Vic Sage wrote: C'mon, Fred, put on your big boy pants. Sign Zobe and Heyward and we'll be good to go. It would probably put our payroll at around $120M next year (or thereabouts), which still wouldn't have been in the top 10 last year. Boy is this sad but true, when a $120M payroll is, for the Mets, lofty and probably unobtainable. Best case scenario for payroll, I predict, is that they'll raise it by five to ten mil and crow about it like they outspent the Dodgers. Meanwhile, with all the extra unanticipated dough the Mets made this year from their WS run, and from more baseball $$ because the sport is a cash cow breaking revenue records every year, the payroll increase will be like those minimum wage increases that don't keep pace with the cost of living and inflation.

Edgy MD Nov 30 2015 05:04 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I wouldn't expect the Mets to crow about their payroll.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 30 2015 05:49 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Edgy MD wrote: I wouldn't expect the Mets to crow about their payroll. I'm gonna take that as an "agree" on the rest of what I wrote.

Centerfield Nov 30 2015 05:50 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Vic Sage wrote: Asdrubel Cabrera? No thanks. he's not bad, but he's not very good anymore either. Middling power, limited range. I'd rather have Zobrist, even at his age. But i don't want Zobe either... at least not for more than a year or 2. Actually, come to think of it, that would be fine. Ok, sign Zobe for 4 years, and even if he sucks toward the end, we're a NY franchise and can afford to carry an expensive UT guy or dump him if necessary. Zobe = 4/$60m Heyward = 7/$130m C'mon, Fred, put on your big boy pants. Sign Zobe and Heyward and we'll be good to go. It would probably put our payroll at around $120M next year (or thereabouts), which still wouldn't have been in the top 10 last year. Yup. My fear is that they will sign Zobrist as their "big acquisition" and do nothing else to improve the offense. And for some reason, lots of fans and media will let them off the hook for this.

Centerfield Nov 30 2015 05:53 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I wouldn't expect the Mets to crow about their payroll. I'm gonna take that as an "agree" on the rest of what I wrote. I can't speak for Edgy, but I don't think the Mets will crow about their payroll, and I don't think that the extra $5 million or $10 million is a best case scenario. Even this past season they took on additional salary. I'd say best case scenario is $120 or $125 million. Maybe I'm dumb, but I still hold out hope that the Wilpons will come through for us.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 30 2015 06:03 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Centerfield wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I wouldn't expect the Mets to crow about their payroll. I'm gonna take that as an "agree" on the rest of what I wrote. I can't speak for Edgy, but I don't think the Mets will crow about their payroll, and I don't think that the extra $5 million or $10 million is a best case scenario. Even this past season they took on additional salary. I'd say best case scenario is $120 or $125 million. Maybe I'm dumb, but I still hold out hope that the Wilpons will come through for us. I was joking about the crow part. Isn't that obvious? What am I -- a madman? Taking on salary --- I doubt it. I think they used the money saved on Mejia and received from Wright's insurance policy to pay for Cespedes and the other add-ons. I wouldn't be surprised if their end of season payroll was lower than what they started with.

Edgy MD Nov 30 2015 07:17 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I was joking about the crow part. Isn't that obvious? What am I -- a madman? Mad, no. But no, the joke isn't obvious.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 01 2015 02:35 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Oh, the payroll isn't going up substantially. I'm just done talking about it, because I'm done complaining about it. The weather is the weather, you know? One adjusts.

Centerfield Dec 01 2015 08:41 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Payroll isn't like the weather. No matter how much you complain, it won't change. Payroll is man made. In fact, it's one man. And that man is susceptible to fan discontent, media pressure, criticisms of his character. If the over-arching theme of this post-season was that it was time for the Wilpons to spend, I have no doubt it would have an effect on payroll. If the blogosphere, twitterverse, fan fora, and beat writers all called him out on his promise in February of 2013, I think that Wilpon could be pressured to act. But we likely will never know, because the pressure is not there. Acceptance? Come on man. Is that what Malcolm taught us?

Vic Sage Dec 01 2015 08:49 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

preach it, brudda.

Vic Sage Dec 01 2015 08:49 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

oh, and weather is man-made, too. Ask the polar bears.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 01 2015 12:57 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

He was shamed publicly for a half-decade, dragged into court for that same period of time, lost a ton of profits as his customers refused to buy his watered-down product, and was forced to take out still more loans just to retain team ownership (interest service alone is a payroll's worth of cash each year, no?). You think fan pressure is going to get him to do ANYTHING? If he feels like opening the coffers, he may. I don't think he will, and-- with the caveat that I'm not privy to any special knowledge about team inner workings-- I'm pretty certain I'm right about that. Anyway, yeah, I'm tentatively on-board with Zobrist pursuit as a pursuit.

d'Kong76 Dec 01 2015 01:14 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Yeah, I don't think shame (as an MLB owner) is in the Wilpon's vocabulary at this point. That bar's been set pretty damn low already.

Vic Sage Dec 01 2015 02:03 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

As Camus observed regarding the myth of Sisyphus, we define ourselves not by the success of our accomplishments or our intentions, but by our actions, even in the face of futility. Continuing to push a rock up a hill in full knowledge that it will roll down on you every time, is an existential act of courage in a godless universe; we create meaning for ourselves by our choices. In the face of a meaningless and absurd task, Sisyphus creates meaning by simply continuing to apply himself to it. So, I choose to howl at the wind that is Fred Wilpon. How the wind responds has nothing to do with me. I expect nothing from the wind. But by naming the wind as merely a gale of hot air, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing, i stand in opposition to the wind, shaking my fist at the sky, and laugh at its indifference. For this is where i stand, this is who i am. Who are you? This has been a message from PAW -- Philosophers Against Wilpon -- shaking our PAW at the sky since 1942.

Edgy MD Dec 01 2015 02:08 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Camus collides with MacBeth, or something.

Zvon Dec 01 2015 02:45 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Today's reports say that Zobrist will make his decision by Dec 10th. OOOOOooo, the drama.

Centerfield Dec 02 2015 01:27 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Latest buzz has Zobrist coming out around $15 million per, for 4 years. Sounds high, but I guess that's the going rate.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 04 2015 11:16 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Mets Hot Stove yesterday reported that the Mets, Nationals, Dodgers, and Giants were in on Zobrist, and the Royals were out. They didn't clearly state that the four teams listed are the only remaining contenders, but they may have been implying that. It's hard to say. Either way, this is expected to be resolved within a week. I'm not sure how I'm rooting, but I think I'm slightly leaning towards hoping the Mets get him. It would give a big boost to the 2016 team. My main concerns are the possible effect on Dilson Herrera and, to a lesser extent, the impact on the 2019 payroll. (I'll be more concerned about that in 2019!)

seawolf17 Dec 04 2015 11:29 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Benjamin Grimm wrote: to a lesser extent, the impact on the 2019 payroll. (I'll be more concerned about that in 2019!) But we'll be coming off three straight World Series trophies, so it'll be okay.

Ceetar Dec 04 2015 12:47 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

There's added value for the Mets to 'overpay' Zobrist a little more if the Nationals are the frontrunners for him. bigger swing.

d'Kong76 Dec 04 2015 01:10 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Ya don't see Mets and overpay in the same sentence often.

Ceetar Dec 04 2015 01:16 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

d'Kong76 wrote: Ya don't see Mets and overpay in the same sentence often. Michael Cuddyer? Chris Young?

Mets Willets Point Dec 04 2015 01:17 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

d'Kong76 wrote: Ya don't see Mets and overpay in the same sentence often. Unless it's referring to tickets, concessions, and souvenirs.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 04 2015 01:23 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Ceetar wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Ya don't see Mets and overpay in the same sentence often. Michael Cuddyer? Chris Young? David Wright too.

d'Kong76 Dec 04 2015 01:25 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Ya'll know what I mean.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 04 2015 01:28 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

New York Post wrote: The Mets have made their pitch to Ben Zobrist. The Post’s Mike Puma confirmed the team’s brass met with the free-agent utility man all day Wednesday and expect an answer soon. The visit included a tour of potential living spots in Westchester and Connecticut and a dinner with general manager Sandy Alderson and COO Jeff Wilpon, according to reports. No word on whether or not, during the dinner, Jeff spoke "street Spanish."

Benjamin Grimm Dec 04 2015 01:30 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Marc Carig, Newsday wrote: Versatile switch-hitter Ben Zobrist may have plenty of suitors. But the Mets are making it clear that they will be among the most aggressive. The Mets have not drawn any limit as far as a potential contract length for Zobrist, according to sources familiar with the negotiations. So, if he requires a four-year deal, the Mets are ready to offer it. Offering a fourth year represents a departure for the Mets under general manager Sandy Alderson. But with Zobrist, the willingness to offer one could to be a deciding factor in where he signs.

Chad Ochoseis Dec 04 2015 01:31 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I'm a recent convert to Zobrism. The Mets' biggest question marks are second base and - yes - third base. I have less cahnfidence in Wright's future effectiveness at third than I do in Flores' future effectiveness at short. And Herrera, of course, is not a proven major league starter. There's a fair chance that we'll need someone other than Wright or Herrera to start 120-140 games at one or the other of those two positions. So, bite the bullet and offer 4/60 for someone who should produce at an above average rate at either position. And, if that doesn't work, Muffy is still available as a plan B.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 04 2015 01:39 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

There are 324 starts to be made between second and third base. If Zobrist makes 150 of them (let's say) that still leaves 174 starts to be split between Wright and Herrera. How that split would go remains to be seen, but I can see Herrera getting 50 or 60 starts. Or a lot more than that if things go badly with Wright. I guess my point is, the signing of Zobrist wouldn't necessarily mean that Herrera gets buried, even if Wright is mostly healthy.

Edgy MD Dec 04 2015 01:42 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Chad, you have more confidence in Lagares 2016 than Wright 2016? Youse guys seem to be forgetting that Tejada exists, leaving Flores plenty of opportunities for starts at second and/or third. Matt Reynolds and Gavin Cecchini have a good chance to debut, also.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 04 2015 01:55 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I think that if the Mets sign Zobrist, he'll get starts at second and third, Herrera will get starts at second, Flores will get starts at shortstop and second, and Tejada will get starts at shortstop. The proportions, of course, will be determined by a variety of factors.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 04 2015 01:56 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

PSST! Zobrist also plays fine corner OF, passable short, a decent fake-y first, and a sweet dulcimer that'll break your heart, cowboys and cowgirls.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 04 2015 02:07 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Can he core a apple?

Centerfield Dec 04 2015 09:36 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I guess I'm torn on this move. I think the Mets biggest need is an impact bat, and that really can only be found in the OF. But as long as they get that, I'm ok if they get Zobrist. So I'm good with Zobrist if this does not prevent the Mets from going out and getting Heyward/Upton. But if it's either Zobrist or Heyward/Upton, then no to Zobrist. Let's try Herrerra. The outfield bat is more important. I'll be pissed if they get Zobrist then try to play it off as if they've drastically improved the offense. But if no Zobrist means we are looking at Asdrubal Cabrera and Gerardo Parra, then I'm hoping they get Zobrist. I don't know if that makes sense. It makes sense in my mind.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 05 2015 08:27 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Centerfield wrote: So I'm good with Zobrist if this does not prevent the Mets from going out and getting Heyward/Upton. Oh, that's adorable.

Frayed Knot Dec 07 2015 08:09 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Davidoff makes the 'Go For It!' case. Winter Meetings start today in Nashville, TN -- conveniently near Zobrist's hometown -- and he could very well make a decision by the time things break up on Thursday. Is also meeting with the Giants & Nats amongst others.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 07 2015 08:14 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

It sounds like the Mets are on board with the fourth year, and they seem to want him pretty badly. My hunch is that Zobrist will be a Met within a week. (My caveat here is that I don't know if any of the other remaining teams in the mix want him as badly as the Mets do.)

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 10:03 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Frayed Knot wrote: Davidoff makes the 'Go For It!' case. Winter Meetings start today in Nashville, TN -- conveniently near Zobrist's hometown -- and he could very well make a decision by the time things break up on Thursday. Is also meeting with the Giants & Nats amongst others. The reason Ben Zobrist is a perfect fit for the Mets is because he's a big enough name, people saw him perform well in the World Series, and the Mets can land him without having to make a big financial commitment. In other words, he is just good enough to pass off as a justification of their failure to get an impact bat. In fact, Zobrist is a nice player, and we are getting him during his decline years. But he has just enough fame to save face for the Wilpons.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 07 2015 10:23 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Centerfield wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Davidoff makes the 'Go For It!' case. Winter Meetings start today in Nashville, TN -- conveniently near Zobrist's hometown -- and he could very well make a decision by the time things break up on Thursday. Is also meeting with the Giants & Nats amongst others. The reason Ben Zobrist is a perfect fit for the Mets is because he's a big enough name, people saw him perform well in the World Series, and the Mets can land him without having to make a big financial commitment. In other words, he is just good enough to pass off as a justification of their failure to get an impact bat. In fact, Zobrist is a nice player, and we are getting him during his decline years. But he has just enough fame to save face for the Wilpons. I agree he's a nice player and it's likely that if he signs we're getting him near the end of his good-player lifecycle. But the rest of this is overstated, he's a very useful guy for the Mets right now and I'm not at all panicked that they've made him the target. I have lots of reservations on Cespedes, plus I hate him for fucking up the World Series, and while Heyward would be a good player he could complicate things inasmuch as we already have 4 outfielders under contract for next year. Not saying they couldn't make something of that situation, but would definitely require more than a few subsequent moves and his acquisition alone wouldn;t provide the kind of versatility they appear to be going for. IOW, if they went and got him they'd still need to get a Zobrist, whereas the reverse isn't necessarily true.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 07 2015 10:35 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I think that the botched fly ball that turned into an inside-the-park homer in the first inning of the first World Series game that Cespedes ever played in is a giant red flag. If he's playing half-assed in that situation, how is he going to be playing several years down the road when he's fat and happy with his huge contract. The Mets had Cespedes for what will probably be the best two months of his career. Good for them! But committing to him for the next seven years is potentially a huge mistake. Let some other team make that mistake.

Ceetar Dec 07 2015 10:42 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I still put some blame on Conforto for that ISTP too.

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 10:43 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I hear what you are saying about Cespedes. I still think he would be worth it. But I also think Heyward works the best. Heyward allows you to platoon Granderson and Lagares. Curtis had a great year last year, but is a strong candidate for falloff. You can off-set that by platooning them. Heyward plays every day, either RF or CF depending on who else is playing. If you sign Kelly Johnson, you get your flexibility. Also, you move Cuddyer to backup 1B/3B. Herrera is your starting second baseman. I think Heyward will be better than Zobrist. I think Herrera will be better than Lagares. And I think Cuddyer/Johnson provide your flexibility.

Ceetar Dec 07 2015 10:46 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Kelly Johnson kinda sucks though. Herrara is a complete wild card (And Flores might not be a good SS) and if you're not trusting Cuddyer in the OF mix, he's not a candidate for long-stretch David Wright replacement either, which might be something they should factor in.

Gwreck Dec 07 2015 10:54 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I agree, they should sign both Heyward and Zobrist

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 10:58 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Gwreck wrote: I agree, they should sign both Heyward and Zobrist

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 11:28 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Ceetar wrote: Kelly Johnson kinda sucks though. Herrara is a complete wild card (And Flores might not be a good SS) and if you're not trusting Cuddyer in the OF mix, he's not a candidate for long-stretch David Wright replacement either, which might be something they should factor in. It's strange. Kelly Johnson, 33, is going to sign a one-year bargain deal someplace. Zobrist, 35, will have a four year deal around $15 per. Johnson and Zobrist are both utility types who hit for middling power. Johnson .755 career OPS. Zobrist .786. It's crazy how differently they are viewed.

Ceetar Dec 07 2015 11:42 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

if you adjust that for park, Johnson has a 102 OPS+ and Zobrist a 117. Johnson has a 103 career wRC+, Zobrist a 118. Zobrist is a very good hitter, Johnson is average. To say nothing of defense and speed.

Vic Sage Dec 07 2015 11:50 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Centerfield wrote: Gwreck wrote: I agree, they should sign both Heyward and Zobrist and if it's just one, it should be Heyward. And signing him doesn't require ANY other OF moves. You have a LHed OF of Conforto/ Heyward/ Granderson, with Lagares and Cuddyer backing them up. signing Zobrist means the IF is Wright/Flores/Zobrist/Duda with Tejada backing up at MI and Cuddyer backing up at CI. A LHed bat would still be needed for the bench, like KJohnson, and a credible backup catcher. If no Zobrist, you try Herrera and, if he tanks, you move Flores over and put Tejada at SS. It's still a solid IF. Basically, I think the long-term impact of Heyward over Lagares/Cuddyer (with Nimmo in the pipeline) will be greater than Zobrist over Herrera/Tejada/Johnson (with Reynolds, Cecchini & Rosario coming up), particularly given their relative ages. You could give Heyward an 8-year deal today and, at the end of it, he'd still be younger than Zobrist is now.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 07 2015 12:10 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

We'd totally miss out on Bryce Harper if we signed Heyward to 8.

Edgy MD Dec 07 2015 12:30 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I've got no feelies for Jason Heyward. He's been a good hitter, but not a great one apart from his rookie year. (In fact, Zobrist has outhit him pretty consistently.) He's been a very good to excellent fielder, but experience suggests defense peaks early. It's been five years since that shiny rookie season and he hasn't made an All Star team since. I'd like to have him, but won't miss him. Eight years? That's silly talk.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 07 2015 12:35 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Yah for a corner OF whose hit 20 HRs once. I like the guy, but don't like-like him.

metsmarathon Dec 07 2015 12:58 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

given the choice between heyward and cespedes, for similar dollars, I'd go heyward a million times. if we're to overpay for somebody this offseason, heyward is the man.

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 01:14 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 07 2015 01:31 PM

Edgy MD wrote: I've got no feelies for Jason Heyward. He's been a good hitter, but not a great one apart from his rookie year. (In fact, Zobrist has outhit him pretty consistently.) He's been a very good to excellent fielder, but experience suggests defense peaks early. It's been five years since that shiny rookie season and he hasn't made an All Star team since. I'd like to have him, but won't miss him. Eight years? That's silly talk. Heyward and Zobrist, to this point, have been nearly identical hitters. OBP of .353 and .355 respectively. SLG is identical at .431. Factor in Heyward's speed and elite defense, and the two are not really comparable. Plus, at 26, Heyward is just about to enter his prime. Zobrist's best days are behind him. On Edit: (I meant comparable on speed and defense)

Gwreck Dec 07 2015 01:22 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Edgy MD wrote: I've got no feelies for Jason Heyward. He's been a good hitter, but not a great one apart from his rookie year. (In fact, Zobrist has outhit him pretty consistently.) He's been a very good to excellent fielder, but experience suggests defense peaks early. It's been five years since that shiny rookie season and he hasn't made an All Star team since. I'd like to have him, but won't miss him. Eight years? That's silly talk. 8 years seems like a long time, but he also turned 26 in August. At the end of an 8 year deal, he will be 34, younger than Zobrist is now.

Edgy MD Dec 07 2015 01:45 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Sure, but it's also eight years worth of things that can go wrong to turn everything south. And frankly, I'm not confident in the trajectory his career is heading in now.

Ceetar Dec 07 2015 03:42 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

the beat writers/national guys seem pretty confident that the Mets will end up with Zobrist this week.

Edgy MD Dec 07 2015 04:23 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Yeah, Cerrone's already bought his kid a jersey. Matt Cerrone wrote: My hunch is Zobrist will eventually be weighing comparable four-year offers from the Mets, Giants and Nationals. The Giants play on the west coast, they train in Arizona and they would mostly use him in left field, none of which are his preferences, from what I've heard. This is probably why FoxSports.com's Ken Rosenthal is saying the Mets and Nationals are the frontrunners to sign him. The two NL East rivals both play closer to Zobrist's home in Tennessee, they both train in Florida (a short flight to Nashville), and they'll use him on the infield, as well as occasionally in the outfield. I like the Mets' chances of getting him. I've heard he enjoyed his tour of Citi Field and New York. He saw their pitching up close in the World Series. He knows their arms are legit and can propel them to postseason contention during the life of his deal. Also, Mets COO Jeff Wilpon is rumored to be headed to the Winter Meetings, which he doesn't usually do unless there is a possible deal on the table. The Nationals, on the other hand, feel like a team on the verge of falling apart, with their top story being about a disgruntled closer. This negotiation is reminding me of when the Mets went after Curtis Granderson, who also wanted a four-year deal. The Mets initially offered three years. They held firm. But, eventually, they locked in at four years and $60 million and got it done. I bet they make a similar offer to Zobrist. Is it going to be good enough? That remains to be seen. But, I think we'll know in the next 48 hours... He makes his argument well enough, but for some reason, I don't tend to trust Cerrone, which is weird, because his inside info should be as good as anybody's.

Ceetar Dec 07 2015 04:31 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Is he AT the meetings? Jeff Wilpon apparently showed up and people seem to be taking that as "oh, gotta get someone to sign the check so this is a sign"

Edgy MD Dec 07 2015 04:34 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

More likely the speculation is related to playing MC at any press conferences that might break out, which makes sense, from a speculation point of view.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 07 2015 07:06 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I don;t believe Cerrone is any closer to the Mets insiders than you are. He takes in the consensus and guesses along with the rest of us.

Frayed Knot Dec 07 2015 07:27 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Rosenthal says it's down to Mets, Giants, & Nats* and speculates that the two NL East teams have the advantage of being closer to his Tennessee home for both the season and spring training, something that's apparently on his list of wants. Sounds like it could be who blinks on the fourth year. Wash GM Mike Rizzo tends to go all out on whoever he's after but also strikes me as the type to put his foot down and say 'three years but not a day longer' if that's how he (or his owners) truly feel. If both clubs concede the 4th year, it may come down to something simple like which org Zobrist thinks is in better shape going forward. A year ago the east choice would have been the Nats, but now they've fallen short of expectations in 3 of the last 4 seasons and are currently minus a SS plus two starting pitchers while both closer candidates are said to be on the market lest they become the target of boo-birds from opening day on. Oh yeah, and the other team reached the World Series. * of course Greinke was supposedly down to just the Dodgers & Giants before winding up in the desert, but we'll gloss over that for now

Gwreck Dec 08 2015 12:06 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Edgy MD wrote: Sure, but it's also eight years worth of things that can go wrong to turn everything south. And frankly, I'm not confident in the trajectory his career is heading in now. Yes, and David Wright could get run over by a city bus tomorrow too. I think we all understand the risks of long term contracts. I do not understand what you mean by the "trajectory his career is heading in now." I was surprised by the comment about his only having one all-star selection too. I see WAR of 4.6 (2010), 2.5 (2011), 5.8 (2012), 3.7 (2013), 6.2 (2014) and 6.5 (2015) and that certainly seems to me to be a player worth signing to a long term deal if he's only 26 years old.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 08 2015 12:37 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Gwreck wrote: Yes, and David Wright could get run over by a city bus tomorrow too. I think we all understand the risks of long term contracts. I do not understand what you mean by the "trajectory his career is heading in now." I was surprised by the comment about his only having one all-star selection too. I see WAR of 4.6 (2010), 2.5 (2011), 5.8 (2012), 3.7 (2013), 6.2 (2014) and 6.5 (2015) and that certainly seems to me to be a player worth signing to a long term deal if he's only 26 years old. Totally agree with you. I didn't get that trajectory comment either, especially when we're juxtaposing Heyward with Zobrist. Did anyone take a look at Zobrist's "trajectory" ferchrissakes? Not that you'd need to. He'll be 35 early next season. That, alone, tells you just about everything you'd need to know and expect from Zobrist's trajectory. I think that a lot of these analyses are overly complicated. The issue is, if you had to choose between the two, which one's gonna improve the Mets more, not how many all-star games they're projected to make. I'd say Heyward, easily. Not that the Mets are gonna get Heyward anyway, so in a sense, this is just another time waster. Of course, a NY franchise that acts like a NY franchise wouldn't have to limit themselves to one or the other if it truly wanted both of these guys. If so, they'd make competitive offers to both players and would be able to afford to carry both should they both choose the Mets.

MFS62 Dec 08 2015 08:34 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Let's do some math. Last year, the average person attending a Mets game spent $135. (Ticket, parking , concessions) I think I saw it in the WSJ. An increase in attendance of 2,000 people per game would yield an income of over $22 million per year. Won't a good offense to go with their pitching keep them in contention all year, producing that kind of increase in attendance? Would adding a middle of the lineup star hitter for less than that be worth it to management? That's the question they should be asking themselves. Later

Ceetar Dec 08 2015 08:46 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

if age is the only factor we're looking at, Just play Herrara, Conforto, and Flores and hope they work out. Free agents don't tend to be young and the ones that do tend to demand contracts that take them until they're not. Like Heyward. He's a nice player. But he's not quite a centerfielder from the reports. (he's only played there very little) Sure, he hits like an elite centerfielder, but not so much in a corner. (he was the 8th best wRC+ RFer last year) He would've been 5th in LF (Behind Zobrist) And last year was his best year in a bunch and he might have gotten a few breaks to get there. I dunno that that guy's worth a large contract on the hope that he won't be embarrassing and negate the advantage (especially going forward) in center.

Edgy MD Dec 08 2015 08:55 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Gwreck wrote: Yes, and David Wright could get run over by a city bus tomorrow too. I think we all understand the risks of long term contracts. Well, this eight-year deal is contrasted with the benefits of a shorter-term deal and that wasn't mentioned. Gwreck wrote: I do not understand what you mean by the "trajectory his career is heading in now." I mean I'm not confident. His age and OPS+ by year 20 - 131 21 - 93 22 - 117 23 - 114 24 - 109 25 - 116 This is a good player, but as a corner outfielder, those numbers don't fill me with confidence for a great future, certainly not enough for me to invest eight years worth. Gwreck wrote: I was surprised by the comment about his only having one all-star selection too. Well, it's just a fact. This is a guy who, when the middle of the season rolls around, does not stand out in the mind of the public or the All-Star managers as among the best at his position. Gwreck wrote: I see WAR of 4.6 (2010), 2.5 (2011), 5.8 (2012), 3.7 (2013), 6.2 (2014) and 6.5 (2015) and that certainly seems to me to be a player worth signing to a long term deal if he's only 26 years old. These are good numbers, but they are, in a large part, a product of strong defense, which peaks early. Outfield defense has been described at Fangraphs as peaking at around 24. And one injury, and that defense becomes a shell of itself. And even healthy the assumption that he's an everyday center fielder is still in the realm of wishcraft. Carlos Beltran only got seven years, and he spent a good chunk of it rehabbing or playing hurt. I view him like a view all non-Mets, with suspicion. But putting that hairy bias aside, it doesn't seem altogether unfounded, does it?

metsmarathon Dec 08 2015 10:40 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

If you think of him more as a centerfielder now (which he would be for the first few years) and as a corner outfielder later, his production seems a little bit more gooder, no? I don't necessarily buy into the corner outfield must be a slugger thing. I wants me WARs and I wants them wherever and however I can gets them.

Edgy MD Dec 08 2015 10:45 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Sure, those OPS+ numbers look better as a center fielder, but (again) we're merely speculating that he can perform there, and (again also) outfield defense productivity fades quickly after the early 20s. So he better spike on offense to make up for those WARs he's likely gonna lose on defense or Met pitchers will be sad.

Gwreck Dec 08 2015 11:12 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Edgy MD wrote: Carlos Beltran only got seven years, and he spent a good chunk of it rehabbing or playing hurt. And yet, despite losing some time to injury, Beltran remains one of the best free agent signings the Mets ever had. They got 5 healthy seasons in which he was no worse than a solid everyday regular, and of course at times substantially better than that. Yes, they also got 2 seasons interrupted by injury - although he was still a valuable player when on the field. That's a reasonable expectation of return, I think, on a long term contract.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 08 2015 11:16 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I think when you sign a player to these deals, you accept that there's a decent chance that the player will be overpriced and under-useful in the last year or two. I think the fourth year of Zobrist (but hopefully not the third year) falls into that category.

Edgy MD Dec 08 2015 12:41 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

No word on the expected victory lap. Reports earlier today indicated the Mets, recognizing the competition were ready to concede on a fourth year. Most recent reports this afternoon suggest the Mets are trying to hold at three, believing the Nats to be the main competition, with Washington willing to satisfy themselves by bidding the Mets up to that fourth year. Curious how well the Mets play this sort of hard poker (calling bluffs on both the Nats and the Zobrist reps) without Sandy in the room. I imagine Zobrist won't be making a commitment today after all if a fourth year doesn't materialize.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 08 2015 12:45 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Hmmm... I had heard that the Mets were okay with the fourth year. Maybe they still are, but are hoping to find a way to get it done with three years. (If that's their secret plan we really shouldn't know anything about it...)

Lefty Specialist Dec 08 2015 12:58 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Supposedly 4 years, $80 million (presumably from the Nats) is on the table. If so, I'll take my chances with Dilson Herrera.

Edgy MD Dec 08 2015 01:00 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Bob Nightengale ?@BNightengale 16m 16 minutes ago Ben Zobrist has a four-year, $80 million offer on the table. The #Mets still considered favorites to ultimately land him. !!!

Ceetar Dec 08 2015 01:01 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Edgy MD wrote: Curious how well the Mets play this sort of hard poker (calling bluffs on both the Nats and the Zobrist reps) without Sandy in the room. Wonder if it makes it easier. "Hold for a minute please, let me see if Sandy's done with chemo" yank at the strings of compassion.

Centerfield Dec 08 2015 01:09 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Lefty Specialist wrote: Supposedly 4 years, $80 million (presumably from the Nats) is on the table. If so, I'll take my chances with Dilson Herrera. Holy crap. That is crazy money for a 35 year old.

seawolf17 Dec 08 2015 01:10 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Centerfield wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: Supposedly 4 years, $80 million (presumably from the Nats) is on the table. If so, I'll take my chances with Dilson Herrera. Holy crap. That is crazy money for a 35 year old. Eff that. No thanks.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 08 2015 01:10 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Lefty Specialist wrote: Supposedly 4 years, $80 million (presumably from the Nats) is on the table. If so, I'll take my chances with Dilson Herrera. Yeah, that's totally crazy.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 08 2015 01:11 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Was thinking 4/60 myself but who the heck knows

TransMonk Dec 08 2015 01:15 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I'd tell him to enjoy DC if they're willing to give him $20M per for his late thirties. I don't want any part of that.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 08 2015 01:18 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Ken Rosenthal wrote: Asked someone who would know if Zobrist has four-year, $80M offer. Answer: “No way.”

Frayed Knot Dec 08 2015 01:31 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 08 2015 01:35 PM

Bob Nightengale ?@BNightengale 16m 16 minutes ago Ben Zobrist has a four-year, $80 million offer on the table. The #Mets still considered favorites to ultimately land him. Asked someone who would know if Zobrist has four-year, $80M offer. Answer: “No way.” I tend to believe Rosenthal here over Nightingale -- or, perhaps more accurately, Rosenthal's source over Nightengale's. Zobrist may very well get four but I don't think even a younger version of himself gets $20, and I certainly would bet against him getting both.

Ceetar Dec 08 2015 01:33 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

market value continually goes up. (and one could argue, rightly) if 4/80 is market value for Ben Zobrist, than it is. Looks like it's not, but if Zobrist is the best fit, the Mets should pay whatever it takes to get him.

Centerfield Dec 08 2015 01:35 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Let's hope so. If Zobrist gets $20 million per, you'd have to think Cespedes would warrant $30 million. And Heyward will get a billion per season.

Edgy MD Dec 08 2015 02:39 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

So, I'm going to guess a Nationals employee leaked the 4x20 figure to Nightengale — who he knows from the DC beat — just to bid up the Mets.

Lefty Specialist Dec 08 2015 02:55 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Edgy MD wrote: So, I'm going to guess a Nationals employee leaked the 4x20 figure to Nightengale — who he knows from the DC beat — just to bid up the Mets. Well, let's hope the brain trust isn't dumb enough to fall for it then. For that money he can enjoy DC. I'm not really on the Zobrist bandwagon. I understand he's versatile and a switch-hitter and his wife can bend knives with her thoughts, but I don't like Herrera being blocked, and we'd be paying for a guy from 35-38.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 08 2015 02:57 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

DiComo sez: The #Mets' final drop-dead offer for Ben Zobrist is not yet on the table. But it could and (probably will) be real, real soon. Stay tuned.

Frayed Knot Dec 08 2015 02:59 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

NYDN: A Mets official told the News Tuesday afternoon that the reported 4-year, $80 million offer for Zobrist did not come from them, and added if he does have that offer from another team, “God bless him if he does.” The $80 million offer was reported by USA Today. "We're going to 5 (years) for 100 (million)," joked another Mets official.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 08 2015 03:05 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Ceetar wrote: market value continually goes up. (and one could argue, rightly) if 4/80 is market value for Ben Zobrist, than it is. Looks like it's not, but if Zobrist is the best fit, the Mets should pay whatever it takes to get him. I was thinking the same thing. Maybe that's today's fair market value, and not just another garishly overpriced contract (offer) that Met fans can easily dismiss.

Ceetar Dec 08 2015 03:09 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: market value continually goes up. (and one could argue, rightly) if 4/80 is market value for Ben Zobrist, than it is. Looks like it's not, but if Zobrist is the best fit, the Mets should pay whatever it takes to get him. I was thinking the same thing. Maybe that's today's fair market value, and not just another garishly overpriced contract (offer) that Met fans can easily dismiss. There's a little bit of chicken/egg of course. But whatever, players are getting a historic low percentage of baseball's revenue.

Edgy MD Dec 08 2015 03:14 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Lefty Specialist wrote: Edgy MD wrote: So, I'm going to guess a Nationals employee leaked the 4x20 figure to Nightengale — who he knows from the DC beat — just to bid up the Mets. Well, let's hope the brain trust isn't dumb enough to fall for it then. For that money he can enjoy DC. Well, I meant to imply that the leak was bullshit and the Nats were offering nothing of the sort.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 08 2015 05:53 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

On Mets Hot Stove tonight, Jim Duquette said that the Nationals are out of the picture on Zobrist and it's down to two teams, the Mets and the Cubs.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 08 2015 05:59 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I allowed myself the momentary terror of thinking the spurned Nats get back at us by signing Muffy and we regret it. We really need Cleveland, Oakland or Tampa to come through for us here.

Edgy MD Dec 08 2015 06:13 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Oakland ain't signing no Muff. Now Colorady... there's a Muffy team. Or he goes to Chicago as a consolation prize for the BZ Sweeps. I can't say for certain why, but I think he stays in the NL, but the AL Central is always muscling up. White Sox, Tigers, Twins, Native Americans? Why not?

Benjamin Grimm Dec 08 2015 06:20 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Ken Rosenthal wrote: Source: Zobrist choosing between #Mets and #Cubs. Comparable offers. Only question is which team he wants to join. #Nationals on periphery. Ken Rosenthal wrote: Sources: #Cubs on Zobrist. Need other moves to come together.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 08 2015 06:39 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Rosenthal says it's Zobby to Cubs.

bmfc1 Dec 08 2015 06:40 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

If Zobrist would rather play in the second city and not the first city for the team that was swept rather than the team that did the sweeping, screw him.

d'Kong76 Dec 08 2015 06:45 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Now what are we going to talk about? Mets can't even land the old guy they were so hot for.

A Boy Named Seo Dec 08 2015 06:52 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I'm not terribly unhappy with this development.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 08 2015 06:57 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Me neither. I was hoping they'd get him, but not getting him has it's benefits. Nobody blocking Dilson Herrera. About $15 million that can be (and hopefully will be) allocated elsewhere.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 08 2015 06:58 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Rosenthal reporting that it's four years, $56 million. So that means it's $14 million the Mets can allocate elsewhere.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 08 2015 06:59 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Amazinly, Cubs trade Starlin Castro to MFYs to free up the infield jam adding Zobrist provided them.

Edgy MD Dec 08 2015 07:14 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Whoops.

Fman99 Dec 08 2015 07:17 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I'm not terribly unhappy with this development. Same here. PAY MUFFERS INSTEAD YOU BOOBS.

Zvon Dec 08 2015 08:30 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Any truth to this business that the Mets offered him 4/$60 and he still went to the Cubs for 4/$56?

dgwphotography Dec 08 2015 08:52 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

I think that this is a bullet dodged.

Frayed Knot Dec 08 2015 09:07 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Zvon wrote: Any truth to this business that the Mets offered him 4/$60 and he still went to the Cubs for 4/$56? Kinda don't care at this point. You'd have to think that Joe Maddon was a major factor in BZ's decision.

Ceetar Dec 08 2015 09:39 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Disappointed. Zobrist is really good. Wonder if this means Murphy comes back.

Frayed Knot Dec 09 2015 07:48 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Wonder if this means Murphy comes back. I think it certainly means he's still an option - and a more likely one than he was a day ago. And speaking of a day ago, it appears that the Cubs had a verbal agreement w/Zobrist As Of Monday Night!! and were just waiting for medical info etc. before making an announcement. In the interim they were able to keep a lid on things (remember that the rumors didn't even mention them) while the NYM contingent were running around as if they were rounding the clubhouse turn and heading down the back stretch with a several length lead. And it's not like I'm treating this as a bait-and-switch thing, that the Mets knew all along they were never ZB's top choice but pretended to be anyway. There's simply no upside in that and despite the sizable contingent of Mets fans who seem to take pride in claiming they were lied to, I'm not going to count myself among them. But here is the lesson in the whole ultimately unsuccessful affair d'Zobriste that the NYM front office should heed: SHUT THE FUCK UP!! The upper levels of this team's mgmt has a history of talking too much before the fact and wind up looking worse in the end than they would have had they simply missed out on a player while negotiations flew more under the radar. And while some will blame a more aggressive NYC media for this, it's not like the national media had a whiff of Cubs/Zobrist either, plus the Yanx don't seem to have their every move foretold in the papers/twitter as the subsequent Starlin Castro deal showed or last year's similar Didi Gregarious move. Bottom Line = DMTL: Deal More, Talk Less

Benjamin Grimm Dec 09 2015 07:49 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Lefty Specialist Dec 09 2015 07:53 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I'm not terribly unhappy with this development. Same here. And re-signing Muffy is not the answer. I'd rather they see what they've got in Herrera and sign Kelly Johnson as insurance. Or go big and shuffle the deck in SS/CF/1B. They've got tradeable pieces. And yeah, STFU.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 09 2015 08:04 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Ceetar Dec 09 2015 08:14 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

The front office would get just as much flak for not speaking enough. And that way gives the media fewer quotes/posts so they'd be less happy with them. People are going to over-analyze every quote or non-quote so they really shouldn't put too much worry into if they're talking too much or too little. Maybe that unsubstantiated 4/80 rumor was the agent/Zobrist leaking "Hey, this is what it would take for me to not go to the Cubs" Personally, I think the Mets should've done that if they felt Zobrist was the guy that helps the team (And I do think he's that) I get it's all a game of probabilities but if they felt Zobrist gave the highest probability of postseason return, that extra couple of % is worth the extra money.

TransMonk Dec 09 2015 08:19 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I'm not terribly unhappy with this development. 100% agreed.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 09 2015 08:20 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

AhemahemTRAIDHARVEYahem

Frayed Knot Dec 09 2015 08:29 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Ceetar wrote: The front office would get just as much flak for not speaking enough. Not from me they wouldn't. The one deal I can think of that happened more or less quietly was Cespedes and I think that's because it happened so quickly on the heels of the aborted Flores/Gomez fiasco, a deal that half of NYC 'knew' about before the freakin' manager did. And I'm not even talking about imposing some sort of Yanqui-style embargo where Brian Cashman denies having even heard of certain players who they've already signed and continues to do so right up until the moment the catered 'Grip-n-Grin' press conference/uniform unveiling/dog and pony show begins. But in this case (and in far too many others) NYM mgmt was apparently letting everyone know (sometimes overtly, sometimes more off the record) that they fully expected to have a deal by the end of the day to the point where Terry is being quoted as to where he'd hit in the lineup (2nd btw). And at least some of this talking was going on after Zobrist had apparently already agreed to a deal with Chicago which just makes them look more stupid in retrospect. They just need to learn to keep it in their pants a little better. Not everything you're thinking needs to be served up via media leaks or pre-completion crowing.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 09:24 AM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

FK hits the nail on the head here. This is kind of what I was alluding to in my Ricco post. After years of watching Alderson masterfully speak and say nothing, it's shocking to see how blunt they are in this short Ricco era. I mean, yesterday Terry Collins was talking about where to bat Zobrist in the order. It's shocking that are so open about not having any Plan B. And I can't imagine why on Earth you destroy any leverage you have by speaking openly about how much you want a player. Crazy. I was thinking last night that the Mets must have thought all along that they would be the only team willing to go 4 years for Zobrist, and never expected the Cubs, or any other team, to match their offer.

Zvon Dec 09 2015 04:23 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Centerfield wrote: FK hits the nail on the head here. This is kind of what I was alluding to in my Ricco post. After years of watching Alderson masterfully speak and say nothing, it's shocking to see how blunt they are in this short Ricco era. I mean, yesterday Terry Collins was talking about where to bat Zobrist in the order. It's shocking that are so open about not having any Plan B. And I can't imagine why on Earth you destroy any leverage you have by speaking openly about how much you want a player. Crazy. I was thinking last night that the Mets must have thought all along that they would be the only team willing to go 4 years for Zobrist, and never expected the Cubs, or any other team, to match their offer. Totally that^

Ashie62 Dec 09 2015 04:48 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Rosenthal reporting that it's four years, $56 million. So that means it's $14 million the Mets can allocate elsewhere. Murphy is smiling!

Zvon Dec 09 2015 09:23 PM Re: Now let's resume our discussion of Ben Zobrist

Ashie62 wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Rosenthal reporting that it's four years, $56 million. So that means it's $14 million the Mets can allocate elsewhere. Murphy is smiling! That's a grimace.