Master Index of Archived Threads


Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 02:34 PM

More or less. Article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/sport ... pedes.html We know that they are pursuing Zobrist. If he goes elsewhere? Likely no Murphy. If Zobrist signs elsewhere, the Mets did not seem to have a clear fallback plan. Ricco said they would be interested in re-signing Daniel Murphy then, depending on his contract demands, “the dollars and length, and what else we’re going to do.” But Ricco warned that the market to sign Murphy would be competitive, especially after his playoff performance. The Mets have said that they would be comfortable starting Dilson Herrera, 21, at second base and bringing in a veteran to play now and then to relieve pressure on him. That is actually encouraging. Considering some reports have them giving money to Asdrubal Cabrera. On Cespedes: “I think it’s unlikely right now that he ends up a Met, I think that’s fair to say,” Ricco said. “I think we will end up meeting with his agent. Right now, I still think he’s looking at a deal that would be north of what we would consider.” I guess we've all suspected it. But it's a bit jarring to hear him come flat out and say we can't afford him. But the worst news in the article: The Mets would like to add complementary players in the bullpen and the outfield. Because they want to play Michael Conforto and Juan Lagares regularly, they are not looking for an “everyday” outfielder, Ricco said, but more of a veteran who could platoon with them. Heyward and Upton are out. In fact, all good players are out. We are just looking to add guys not good enough to hold down a full-time job. So basically, our only chance to offset the loss of Cespedes and Murphy is Ben Fucking Zobrist. And for those who are excited about Zobrist, consider this. We are afraid of going 5 or 6 years on Cespedes because of how old he would be toward the end of that deal. If we gave Cespedes that 6 year deal, he would be 35 when that deal expired. That is how old Zobrist is now. And we are about to give him a four year deal.

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 02:44 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

This article has the actual quote on the everyday outfielders: "Those everyday guys aren't as attractive to us," Ricco said. http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/cb54 ... t-cespedes Yes John. Those everyday outfielders are not attractive. Let's pass up three outfielders in their prime who have historically all been better than Ben Zobrist, and give Zobrist a multi-year deal for his age 35-38 years. This is a fucking joke. Just because you spend less money doesn't make it any less of a risk. Probability of return on your investment is just as much of a factor as the actual dollars spent.

Edgy MD Dec 07 2015 02:46 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I don't think it's quite age that triggers a risk aversion with Cespedes, so much as the his skill set being so volatile and age-dependent, if that distinction makes sense. It made more sense when LWFS dumped on me for Cespedes-wishing. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: 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. I don't think that should be the last word. But it's a strong word.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 07 2015 02:48 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I'm okay with letting Cespedes go. That nonchalant play in the outfield on that inside-the-park homer in World Series Game 1 gave us a good look at his downside. It doesn't bode well for how he'd be playing five years into his huge contract. I do wish that the Mets were in on Heyward, but we've known for a while that they're not, and I've come to accept that. In 2019, I think it's likely that Ben Zobrist at $15 million will be better than Yoenis Cespedes at $25 million, so I'm okay with this.

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 02:54 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 07 2015 02:55 PM

*avi

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 02:55 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I don't think it's quite age that triggers a risk aversion with Cespedes, so much as the his skill set being so volatile and age-dependent, if that distinction makes sense. It made more sense when LWFS dumped on me for Cespedes-wishing. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: 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. I don't think that should be the last word. But it's a strong word. I get that sustainability is a factor. I think first off, it's incredibly difficult to predict. (Everyone thought Rickey had the type of game that would age quickly. Everyone thought Alfonzo's production was sustainable.) The point to remember is that Zobrist, being much older, is just as much of a risk to fall off as Cespedes. And there is no question that Cespedes is likely to far out-produce Zobrist over the next 3-4 years. And that's fine if you are not on the Cespedes bandwagon. There is Heyward. And Upton. And even Denard Fucking Span. When you eliminate every day outfielders, you are leaving yourself with scrubs. Scrubs. You can call them "veterans who can platoon with our existing players" but that is another way of saying scrubs. John Ricco is saying we cannot afford good players.

Edgy MD Dec 07 2015 03:01 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: I think first off, it's incredibly difficult to predict. Certainly. Centerfield wrote: The point to remember is that Zobrist, being much older, is just as much of a risk to fall off as Cespedes. Maybe. But the LWFS suggestion is that Cespedes' skill set ages faster and harder, declines steeper. I don't know.

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 03:05 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I don't argue with that. Cespedes certainly seems like the type of guy who is likely to see a drop in production because of the way he plays. But Zobrist is a guy who is likely to see a drop in production because he's 35 years old. And while it's not likely that the Cespedes dropoff would happen for the next 3 years, the Zobrist dropoff could just as easily happen tomorrow.

Ceetar Dec 07 2015 03:08 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I don't feel like arguing about these players again, but I will say this I wouldn't take anything a (Mets) official says publicly about their plans. Especially when it's John Ricco acting as a proxy.

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 03:12 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 07 2015 03:26 PM

Anyway, the point is that the owners are fucking us over. John Ricco is telling us before the winter meetings, that the owners have handcuffed them so don't expect dick. Wilpon promised that he would spend money once the fans showed up. Which, by the way, is a dick move to begin with. You don't put the onus on the fans asswipe. You put the product out there first. But in any case, because of the brilliance of his GM, they fielded a winner, went to the World Series, brought in tons of revenue for the club. And now Wilpon is saying "Yeah, about that. See, I was just kidding. Still no money. Sorry." And it's one thing to suspect it. It's another to hear stated so flatly. I guess the rest of you guys knew all along that this would happen. I guess I was the idiot who thought that they might actually make good on their word. I don't know. Fuck these Wilpons. Fuck them with a fucking spoon.

MFS62 Dec 07 2015 03:15 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

We have been pleasantly surprised by moves made by the Alderson team many times. Let's wait and see what happens. Later

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 03:18 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Ceetar wrote: I don't feel like arguing about these players again, but I will say this I wouldn't take anything a (Mets) official says publicly about their plans. Especially when it's John Ricco acting as a proxy. That's a fair point. And I considered this. Maybe this is Ricco just acting coy. Except that there is no benefit to stating you are out on the outfielders. First off, if you were serious about signing them, you would have had contact with their agents. And so they would know you were full of shit if you said otherwise. Secondly, a statement like this actually hurts your chances with Zobrist. If I am Zobrist's agent, I read this and say: "Hey Ben. You are their only chance to save face this winter. If you don't sign with them, they are stuck trying to justify Asdrubal Cabrera. No way you take less than four years." In fact, saying the exact opposite helps them. John Ricco: "Look, everyone knows we are linked with Zobrist. But we can get that production from Cespedes or Heyward too. We can go a lot of different directions here." And you can say this even if you don't really mean it. Ricco's words are designed to have one effect. Dampen fan expectations. And it's done at the last possible moment, before the winter meetings, as far as possible from the sting of the WS loss.

Edgy MD Dec 07 2015 03:26 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

And folks complained about Alderson's doublespeak and playing close to his vest. Well, this is what plainspeak looks like.

Ceetar Dec 07 2015 03:29 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

even if we're assuming that these comments even mean as much as thinly veiled negotiation ploys and not just "reporters need me to say something" Zobrist is coveted by everyone and it doesn't really make sense to play coy with him. You want to him to feel like him signing here makes him the man, gets him another ring, etc.

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 03:32 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Edgy MD wrote: And folks complained about Alderson's doublespeak and playing close to his vest. Well, this is what plainspeak looks like. Right? I wonder if Sandy is pissed off someplace about how many cards were shown last night.

bmfc1 Dec 07 2015 03:42 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I'm OK with the Mets making decisions for baseball reasons (obviously). They made lots of good decisions in 2015. I'm not OK with the Mets making decisions for monetary/Madoff-based reasons. After 7 home playoff games, all of the extra tickets sold in August and September, the increase in season ticket holders, merchandise, et al., it's time to put those excuses to bed. We were told "if you show up, we'll spend money." Fans showed up so do what you said. Why don't they want Heyward? Is it because of money or a baseball reason (e.g. they don't need a corner OF'er)? If Todd Frazier is available, then why don't they want him? Is it because they can't find a position for him or they don't want to add a big contract? I hope that they aren't planning on "staying close" again until July and making another big deal because there is not guarantee that they will, in fact, "stay close" and if so, if a Cespedes will be available.

Centerfield Dec 07 2015 03:50 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

bmfc1 wrote: I'm OK with the Mets making decisions for baseball reasons (obviously). They made lots of good decisions in 2015. I'm not OK with the Mets making decisions for monetary/Madoff-based reasons. After 7 home playoff games, all of the extra tickets sold in August and September, the increase in season ticket holders, merchandise, et al., it's time to put those excuses to bed. We were told "if you show up, we'll spend money." Fans showed up so do what you said. Why don't they want Heyward? Is it because of money or a baseball reason (e.g. they don't need a corner OF'er)? If Todd Frazier is available, then why don't they want him? Is it because they can't find a position for him or they don't want to add a big contract? I hope that they aren't planning on "staying close" again until July and making another big deal because there is not guarantee that they will, in fact, "stay close" and if so, if a Cespedes will be available. Exactly. Not to mention that Michael Fullmer has already been traded, and so further moves like this deplete the farm system more. (Which hurts the philosophy of scouting and development.) Incidentally, Ricco also planted the seed of trading Niese. Who just happens to be our most expensive starting pitcher...

Lefty Specialist Dec 07 2015 03:59 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

This is all blah, blah, blah until people sign. If we look back in March and did nothing, well, then I'll lower the boom. But things are very fluid right now for a lot of teams. Hell, last year I didn't think there was a chance in hell they'd sign Cuddyer. And after that I thought they'd do something more than John Freaking Mayberry Jr. So I'll wait and see. While I'm happy to crucify the Wilpons when it's needed, I won't crucify them for something that they haven't done yet.

Nymr83 Dec 07 2015 10:33 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: And folks complained about Alderson's doublespeak and playing close to his vest. Well, this is what plainspeak looks like. Right? I wonder if Sandy is pissed off someplace about how many cards were shown last night. Orhis new plan is to send out Ricco to lie to the press while he negotiates a big deal with Heyward's agent.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 08 2015 02:08 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

ZOBRIST/SPAN: The Possibly Affordable Plan?

Centerfield Dec 08 2015 04:40 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Better than: ZOBRIST OR DICK. IT WILL MAKE YOU SICK.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 01:15 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Mmmmm... dick...

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 01:59 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Now it's going to be really interesting. I found myself wondering what would have happened had Cuddyer taken the QO and spurned the Mets last year. They would not have been allowed to take the easy option and would have been forced to either spend money, get creative, or admit failure. Now that Zobrist, the easy out, is off the table, I wonder what they will do. Public pressure will be big to make a big move. Do they do it? Do they try to sell us on Cabrera and Parra? We'll see.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 09 2015 02:08 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

If only the Mets had ever made a Plan B deal after Plan A fell apart.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 02:26 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Oh, they have. Not to my satisfaction, but they have. Todd Zeile after Jon Olerud walked. Kevin Appier after Mike Hampton took a hike. Plan Bs cut no ice with me. Pivot and move on. Principles, not plans. Philosophies of war, not battle strategies. Maybe some guy wants to start a billboard campaign. But hey, it's just Ben Zobrist.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 09 2015 02:42 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Yeah, I was making reference to the Gomez-Flores-Cespedes thingy.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 09 2015 02:44 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: If only the Mets had ever made a Plan B deal after Plan A fell apart. To tell you the truth, their Plan A was no great shakes either.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 02:51 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Agreed.

Frayed Knot Dec 09 2015 03:06 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Vince Coleman in response to post-Darryl Strawberry

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 03:10 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yeah, I was making reference to the Gomez-Flores-Cespedes thingy. Woosh.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 03:11 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Frayed Knot wrote: Vince Coleman in response to post-Darryl Strawberry Trading for Kingman after losing the Dave Winfield sweepstakes.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 03:25 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yeah, I was making reference to the Gomez-Flores-Cespedes thingy. Exactly. The middling, economic move fell through. So instead, the Mets went for the big guy and rode that all the way to the World Series. Do it again. In fact, go get the same guy. And if not him, Upton. And if not him, Heyward.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 03:27 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

And by the way, if after the Flores trade fell through, Sandy came to the stand and talked about Gerardo Parra and Asdrubal Cabrera, everyone here would have properly rioted. Not Ben Grimm. He might have harumphed and then went to sleep.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 03:39 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I never thought of the trade as having fallen through, so much as the Mets having other things going, continuing to work them as they negotiated on Gomez, and pivoting as they soured on Go-Go.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 03:53 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Pivot, regroup, call it what you will. Their initial move did not pan out. Option 2 was a 450 foot bomb into the second deck. Last winter, the Mets pursued Cuddyer. The easy move. The safe move. He signed. It turned into dick. In July, the Mets tried another small-balls move. Gomez is a nice player, under team control. But he doesn't hit for power. Doesn't give you the thunder in the lineup. It didn't work out. They traded for Cespedes instead. And suddenly we absolutely mashed our way to a division title. Now, this winter, the Mets again tried to lay up. Play it "safe" with Zobrist. It didn't happen. What will they do now? Pussy out and try to justify Gerardo Parra? Or go big again. We'll see.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 03:57 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I don't think the other option didn't pan out. I think they went in a different direction by their own volition. I don't buy this balls/pussy stuff at all.

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 09 2015 04:19 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I think each winter meetings we seem to go into woe-is-me mode when other teams head from the hotels with shiny new toys and we're looking at the same toy box. Since we're a month out of playing in a World Series, I have to give our guys the benefit of the doubt and assume they know what they're doing. Let other teams overspend of some of these guys.

Gwreck Dec 09 2015 05:00 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think each winter meetings we seem to go into woe-is-me mode when other teams head from the hotels with shiny new toys and we're looking at the same toy box. Since we're a month out of playing in a World Series, I have to give our guys the benefit of the doubt and assume they know what they're doing. I am willing to give the Mets' baseball staff the benefit of the doubt, and if they don't come home from the winter meetings with a new player, all is not lost. But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 09 2015 05:15 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Yeah, the balls/puss paradigm, I'm not into. I just worry that the need is still there, and that being at the back of the line doesn't lead to bargains. I think I'd still like Span.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 09 2015 01:03 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I think I support going after Span too but I think the infield is where we gotta upgrade still. There has to be a trade out there still that could work for us. We've still got some stuff to deal (Plawecki, Niese, Harvey, Montero, Flores, Tejada, Herrera etc)

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 01:33 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there. It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 02:11 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Edgy MD wrote: Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there. It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable. I don't think Gwreck's point is reasonably debatable.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 02:20 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Well, I am a man of reason, I promise.

Ceetar Dec 09 2015 02:29 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there. It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable. I don't think Gwreck's point is reasonably debatable. So we knew in 2015 that d'Arnaud and Wright would miss all that time? Cause hell, a full season from them is worth well more than what Cespedes (And even the scraps Kelly and Juan added)

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 09 2015 02:32 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there. It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable. I don't think Gwreck's point is reasonably debatable. We've been over this before but if the Mets sucked so much cock on opening day how else to explain how well they played for the period where they weren't missing Wright and d'Arnaud. All teams with designs for the World Series made acquisitions to help get them there; the Mets need turned out to be more acute not because they were weak going into the year but because they were weakened with injuries to several key guys. Their bench needed an overhaul but that too wasn't a perceived weakness going into the year either

Benjamin Grimm Dec 09 2015 02:33 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

In our preseason prediction threads, there are some people here who always pick the Mets to win 100 games and the pennant. But other than them, I think the consensus here was that they were mediocre, with an outside chance at the playoffs. I know that's how I felt.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 02:38 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Feelings aside, the spring training record and record before three of their best hitters — among many others — went out simultaneously (for very extended periods in two of the cases) make a strong case that they were a strong team. That they were able to acquire good players at the deadline speaks also to what had been built previously. It's a process. Nobody has to agree with this, but it's certainly not unreasonable. They were a very good team, that survived an inordinate number of blows. Pennant!

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 02:39 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Ceetar wrote: Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there. It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable. I don't think Gwreck's point is reasonably debatable. So we knew in 2015 that d'Arnaud and Wright would miss all that time? Cause hell, a full season from them is worth well more than what Cespedes (And even the scraps Kelly and Juan added) Please. Stop with this. Every team has injuries. We didn't know in spring of 2015 that Wright and d'Arnaud would get hurt (though given their track record, it should not have been at all surprising). But we did know that someone would get hurt. Because someone always does. Washington didn't have Span all season. They went half a year without Rendon. They never sniffed a last place offense. Every team has injuries. Only the Mets were the worst offense in baseball. And that is what happens when your best case scenario is a "just below average". When you hit bumps, you end up at the bottom of the barrell. Last winter, there was a large contingent here that felt the Mets hadn't done enough. Cuddyer played himself onto the bench, and Mayberry was cut. How much more evidence do you guys need before admitting that we were right?

Ceetar Dec 09 2015 02:43 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Benjamin Grimm wrote: In our preseason prediction threads, there are some people here who always pick the Mets to win 100 games and the pennant. But other than them, I think the consensus here was that they were mediocre, with an outside chance at the playoffs. I know that's how I felt. Yes, but most of that was because many thought the Nationals would win 95.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 02:45 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

No, really, they got hit harder than most. Every team has injuries. Every team does not have injuries to the same degree. They got hit harder than most, and they endured a tough middle, and they adapted. And they won. And that is what happens when your best case scenario is a "just below average". I don't get this. The best-case scenario is and was demonstrably at least a National League pennant. Yay!

smg58 Dec 09 2015 02:46 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I'm working under the assumption that the Mets would have offered Zobrist four years if it was really Zobrist or dick. And since there are perfectly valid baseball reasons not to go four years on Zobrist, I'm not upset. There's a pretty sizable market at second base, including the incumbent. I'm not panicking. I agree with Ceetar's point that it wasn't just the Cespedes deal that helped down the stretch. Conforto getting his sea legs was a huge upgrade over what we'd had in the outfield to that point as well, as were a healthy Wright and d'Arnaud, and those things all remain in place.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 02:54 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Gwreck wrote: But it is also a fair observation that they did not have a World Series caliber team going into spring training 2015 and it took big in-season acquisitions to get there. It may be fair, but it's certainly debatable. I don't think Gwreck's point is reasonably debatable. We've been over this before but if the Mets sucked so much cock on opening day how else to explain how well they played for the period where they weren't missing Wright and d'Arnaud. All teams with designs for the World Series made acquisitions to help get them there; the Mets need turned out to be more acute not because they were weak going into the year but because they were weakened with injuries to several key guys. Their bench needed an overhaul but that too wasn't a perceived weakness going into the year either David Wright played 8 games before going down with injury. Travis played 13. Are you suggesting that this sample size is significant? Lucas Duda had an OPS of 1.103 during that time. It's silly to draw any conclusions from that small subset of games. Everyone has injuries. Wright's and d'Arnaud's were certainly not a shock given their track record. If you have an offense that turns into the worst offense in baseball after losing two players, that offense was not good enough to begin with. I just mentioned in my other post that Washington lost two key players for big chunks of the season. They were still fine offensively. That is the problem with aiming for mediocrity. When you have setbacks, like you always do, you end up in danger of fielding the worst offense in baseball. And let's not lose sight of the fact that the two acquisitions the Mets made, Cuddyer and Mayberry, were terrible.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 09 2015 03:00 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Don't be purposefully dense, I'm suggesting the "sample size" of half a season (dArnaud) and 3/4ths (Wright) were significant.

MFS62 Dec 09 2015 03:02 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I posted this in the Sandy Alderson thread, but its down at the bottom of the page. So, here are my thoughts: Sandy has never ceased to surprise us by doing what everyone thought he couldn't do. While he might not produce two mic droppers, I'm sure he has (cliché alert) planned the work, and he will now work the plan. And I believe the Mets will start the new season with a true platoon centerfielder (maybe a regular with right handed power who can play the corners, too), infield insurance at second and third (Murphy?) and help for the bullpen. And I don't have the foggiest idea who those players will be. But given his track record, in Sandy I trust. I wasn't that thrilled with the prospect of paying Zobrist that much for that many years and I don't think Haywood is the player they really need. Yes he can play centerfield. So can I. But you wouldn't want to see me do it, much less pay me to do it. If they take a run at Upton, I'd be all over that. I still believe, Later

Nymr83 Dec 09 2015 03:08 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

MFS62 wrote: I posted this in the Sandy Alderson thread, but its down at the bottom of the page. So, here are my thoughts: Sandy has never ceased to surprise us by doing what everyone thought he couldn't do. While he might not produce two mic droppers, I'm sure he has (cliché alert) planned the work, and he will now work the plan. And I believe the Mets will start the new season with a true platoon centerfielder (maybe a regular with right handed power who can play the corners, too), infield insurance at second and third (Murphy?) and help for the bullpen. And I don't have the foggiest idea who those players will be. But given his track record, in Sandy I trust. I wasn't that thrilled with the prospect of paying Zobrist that much for that many years and I don't think Haywood is the player they really need. Yes he can play centerfield. So can I. But you wouldn't want to see me do it, much less pay me to do it. If they take a run at Upton, I'd be all over that. I still believe, Later I think they should let you do it for a game in spring training like Garth Brooks, it'll be awesome.

MFS62 Dec 09 2015 03:13 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Nymr83 wrote: I think they should let you do it for a game in spring training like Garth Brooks, it'll be awesome. Thanks. I'll send you a membership card in my fan club. I think I still have some. :) Later

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 03:15 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Don't be purposefully dense, I'm suggesting the "sample size" of half a season (dArnaud) and 3/4ths (Wright) were significant. I'm not being purposefully dense. The Mets played 13 games with d'Arnaud and Wright healthy before the reinforcements arrived. Neither returned until after the July 31 deadline. By that time, the Mets had traded for Cespedes and called up Conforto. Both of those were moves I had been urging them to do.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 03:30 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Edgy MD wrote: No, really, they got hit harder than most. Every team has injuries. Every team does not have injuries to the same degree. They got hit harder than most, and they endured a tough middle, and they adapted. And they won. And that is what happens when your best case scenario is a "just below average". I don't get this. The best-case scenario is and was demonstrably at least a National League pennant. Yay! I think I get how to read that chart, and I see that Washington was affected less than the Mets. I just can't gauge what that difference is, or how much of an effect that difference would have on production. I do see that St. Louis and Toronto were hit badly, but seemed to do fine. Realistically, the best case scenario for the offense going into 2015, if they remained injury free, was middle of the pack to just below average. When you aim low, injuries can push you to last in the league. That is why I said they needed to do more. When they did more (got Cespedes, called up Conforto), that's when they took off. It's not a difficult concept.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 03:39 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: When they did more (got Cespedes, called up Conforto), that's when they took off. It's not a difficult concept. No, it's not. It's also highly selective. There's certainly no point in being patronizing. They also "took off" right out of the gate. And "took off" when injured players returned. Being able to call up Conforto, and being in a position to add good players as the developing situation suggested where they would be best added, is all part of who they were going into the season.

TransMonk Dec 09 2015 03:41 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: What will they do now? Pussy out and try to justify Gerardo Parra? Or go big again. We'll see. Personally, I'd rather have Parra for the next 3-4 years (with more flexibility to make other moves) than be tied up with Zobrist heading into his twilight.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 03:44 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 09 2015 03:46 PM

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think each winter meetings we seem to go into woe-is-me mode when other teams head from the hotels with shiny new toys and we're looking at the same toy box. Since we're a month out of playing in a World Series, I have to give our guys the benefit of the doubt and assume they know what they're doing. Let other teams overspend of some of these guys. This is silly. I get upset each winter because I feel the Mets don't do enough. And for the past several years, they haven't. Before this year, they hadn't had a winning record since 2008. And all the while, other teams are improving, signing players. Making the playoffs. So yes, call it "woe-is-me" mode if you like. I think I have a right to be upset when my team sucks and other teams get better. They made the World Series after making the moves I implored them to make. And I applauded them when they did so. Now, they are at risk to returning to their old habits. That's why I'm upset. Yes, let's let other teams "overspend". Let's not be the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers and Giants (the top 5 payrolls in baseball). Let's not be them at all. Let's pretend that this group has not won 6 out of the last 10 World Series. Ha ha. Look at those foolish overspenders. What idiots they are.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 03:45 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

*Avi

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 03:51 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: Let's not be them at all. Let's pretend that this group has not won 6 out of the last 10 World Series. Can I get an AMEN, brothers and sisters!?!

Ceetar Dec 09 2015 04:03 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

of course, the Mets have been the WS as much as, or more than, all those teams except the Giants in recent years.

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 04:22 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Of course, they wouldn't have gotten there without Cespedes and perhaps not have been as successful in the playoffs without Murphy.. both of whom are now gone and replacements don't seem to be on the paydar.

Ceetar Dec 09 2015 04:25 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

d'Kong76 wrote: Of course, they wouldn't have gotten there without Cespedes and perhaps not have been as successful in the playoffs without Murphy.. both of whom are now gone and replacements don't seem to be on the paydar. I didn't see the link that said the Mets were considering 8 fielders. Is Flores going to try to field both second and SS?

Frayed Knot Dec 09 2015 04:27 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

MFS62 wrote: ... I don't think Haywood is the player they really need. Yes he can play centerfield. So can I. But you wouldn't want to see me do it, much less pay me to do it. If they take a run at Upton, I'd be all over that. I don't think there's any basis for this. There may be better/more experienced defensive CFs in baseball than Hayward (and we may have one of them) but there aren't many and most teams would take him as their everyday CF for the next couple of years anyway. And if it's a CF you want, you'd certainly be better off with him over Upton. Argue against Hayward all you want, but I wouldn't go citing defense as the reason.

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 04:29 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Ceetar wrote: I didn't see the link that said the Mets were considering 8 fielders. Sssshhhhh, don't give Freddy any ideas for saving more money.

Vic Sage Dec 09 2015 05:34 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

CF and d'Kong, keep the flame alive! I wasn't happy with our lineup going into 2015, and it wasn't until Cespedes and Conforto joined the returning Wright and d'Arnaud (and Johnson and Uribe won games with the depth they provided) that they went from the worst offense to the best offense in baseball. And now Cespedes and Murphy (probably) are gone, and Wright and d'Arnaud still have ongoing injury concerns, and Cuddyer is washed up, and Lagares can't reallly hit, and Flores doesn't have any range (and just busted his ankle), and our big move to fix this was going to be Zobrist? I didn't think that would be enough. and now they don't even get HIM? And everybody's ok with that, because a 4/yr $56m deal is some sort of crippling deal that would hobble us for years? wow, what total bullshit. I predicted a 4/yr $60m deal for Zobrist, and the sabermetrically minded thought he was worth that and more, but that is an "overpay" we should be glad the Cubs indulged in? The Cubs are going to be one of our main rivals (if not THE main one) to win a pennant this year, and they replaced Starlin with Zobrist (win-win). And what are we doing? bemoaning the fact that Heyward is out of our reach? WHY IS HE OUT OF OUR REACH? Go ahead, people, say it. I want you to say it out loud. Say it!. Because our owners were either stupid or corrupt enough to try and win money in a pyramid scam and, after making consistently big returns in a bear market (at which they did not look too hard), they got wiped out by the guy just above them in the pyramid. And so they hocked everything and the interest hasn't even come due yet, so they still talk like they're a NY team but act like CitiField is in Oakland. We needed Zobrist + Heyward, we could make do with Murphy and Upton, but we're likely headed for Cabrera and Parra, or Span and Desmond (if we get anybody at all). And we're OK with that? The team should be in receivership and run by MLB, like they did with the Dodgers, until real owners are found. In the meantime, we'll just keep whistling past the graveyard and sing "happy days are here again." This has been a message from Philosophers Against the Wilpons... PAW, pushing a rock uphill since December 11, 2008.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 09 2015 06:13 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 09 2015 06:19 PM

What Vic said. Of course. Because when I write that shit, it has no effect because I'm the Boy Who Cried Megdal. And another thing. I don't agree with this prescient sort of credit the Mets are getting for getting Cespedes after the Gomez fiasco. Because nobody could have anticipated what Yoenis would do. He basically hit about a season's worth of HR's in less than a month, going on a hitting RAMPAGE for the ages. It was a freak thing more than anything else and it's scope was (is?) historical --- it's one of the most incredible three or four week hitting runs in baseball history. And it's important to know this because that's what the Mets have to replace -- a freak once in a lifetime hitting run that's not repeatable. Yoenis's streak won't happen again but its production is baked into the Mets 2015 success -- that's probably why they won the division. So yeah, 35 year old Zobrist won't get the Mets there. I don't know how they're gonna make that up but we're gonna have to hope for a big step up from at least Conforto and probably d'Arnaud. Meanwhile, Granderson'll be 35 and who knows what the hell the Mets have in Wright, who despite providing some huge emotional moments last season, was the most superfluous "regular" on the team. And he just killed the Mets in the WS.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 09 2015 06:18 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What Vic said. Of course. Because when I write that shit, it has no effect because I'm the Boy Who Cried Megdal. And another thing. I don't agree with this prescient sort of credit the Mets are getting for getting Cespedes after the Gomez fiasco. Because nobody could have anticipated what Yoenis would do. He basically hit about a season's worth of HR's in less than a month, going on a hitting RAMPAGE for the ages. It was a freak thing more than anything else and it's scope was (is?) historical --- it's one of the most incredible three or four week hitting runs in baseball history. And it's important to know this because that's what the Mets have to replace -- a freak once in a lifetime hitting run. Yoenis's streak won't happen again but its production is baked into the Mets 2015 success -- that's probably why they won the division. So yeah, 35 year old Zobrist won't get the Mets there. I don't know how they're gonna make that up but we're gonna have to hope for a big step up from at least Conforto and probably d'Arnaud. Meanwhile, Granderson'll be 35 and who knows what the hell the Mets have in Wright, who despite providing some huge emotional moments last season, was the most superfluous "regular" on the team. And he just killed the Mets in the WS. OE--- And another thing, it's just mid-boggling how quick people are willing to ignore just how inept these owners are because the Mets went to the WS.

Ceetar Dec 09 2015 06:20 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Because mostly all owners suck and I literally don't care about any of them. My team went to the World Series, and are, even right this moment, probably even money to win the division again. I'm happy. who said Heyward is out of our reach anyway? I'm not the one pretending I know every ledger line on the Mets, and Sterlings, books.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 06:27 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Yeah, the World Series. Suckers.

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 06:40 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Even back in my blue-and-orange-Wayfarer wearing days in 2000 I re- member posting on fora of old... hey, the Mets raise the pennant today. Oh, I forgot that sucks... nevermind. I take no solace in being NL Champs if it was three steps forward in 2015 and two-and-a-half steps back in 2015-16 offseason.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 06:41 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, the World Series. Suckers. As if on cue. Come on Edgy. You can admit that going to the World Series can be separated from the performance of the owners.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 06:42 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

d'Kong76 wrote: Even back in my blue-and-orange-Wayfarer wearing days in 2000 I re- member posting on fora of old... hey, the Mets raise the pennant today. Oh, I forgot that sucks... nevermind. I take no solace in being NL Champs if it was three steps forward in 2015 and two-and-a-half steps back in 2015-16 offseason. Yup.

Ceetar Dec 09 2015 06:43 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

d'Kong76 wrote: I take no solace in being NL Champs if it was three steps forward in 2015 and two-and-a-half steps back in 2015-16 offseason. I don't care how many steps they take in the offseason, it's neither forward or back as there are no games.

Ashie62 Dec 09 2015 06:46 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

The Mets made the world series, They dont have to do much this offseason. Goodbye Zobrist and Castro.

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 06:47 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Ceetar wrote: I don't care how many steps they take in the offseason That is abundantly clear. Surround these pitchers with some offense, Sterlingpon... you're on the clock and it's ticking loudly before they all start evaporating elsewhere.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 09 2015 06:49 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Ashie62 wrote: The Mets made the world series, They dont have to do much this offseason. Goodbye Zobrist and Castro. Of course not. If I ran the Mets I'd do nothing until about the All Star break and then I'd pick up an old Jack Aker and see what Ike Hampton and Brock Pemberton could do.

Ceetar Dec 09 2015 06:51 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: I don't care how many steps they take in the offseason That is abundantly clear. Surround these pitchers with some offense, Sterlingpon... you're on the clock and it's ticking loudly before they all start evaporating elsewhere. Not really how it works. I'm sure everyone will hate and bash whatever guys they do get as the 'wrong guys' unless they take the top 3 free agent hitters and even then it'll be the wrong top 3.

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 06:55 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Not hating or bashing. I'm not going to beat this drum all winter. But I'm also not going to sit idly by with blinders on and think the Mets are a well run organization and amply financed. Anyone who does is a sheep. Bahhhhh.

Ceetar Dec 09 2015 06:57 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

d'Kong76 wrote: Not hating or bashing. I'm not going to beat this drum all winter. But I'm also not going to sit idly by with blinders on and think the Mets are a well run organization and amply financed. Anyone who does is a sheep. Bahhhhh. They're as well run as any. Better than some.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 06:59 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What Vic said. Of course. Because when I write that shit, it has no effect because I'm the Boy Who Cried Megdal. batmagadan, I'll be honest. I have been wondering how much of an effect you, and your non-stop re-posting of Megdal articles, have had on this debate here at the CPF. I wonder if the Great Payroll Debates of the 2010's would even be a debate if not for the history here. To me, it seems like a no-brainer. Fred promised to spend more money once we got close and attendance went up. Increased payroll means elite free agents, better chance at winning. With this not happening, I would have predicted that all Mets fans would revolt unanimously. But here, there is very little uproar about the payroll. A lot of justification of smaller moves. Even after we suffered through a league-worst offense, I feel like there is a strong contingent here not wanting to admit that the team was just not good enough before the trades. And now, with the team basically saying that they can't afford the top guys, I am seeing posters here stretch to find ways to justify the non-spending. Up until last Winter, I didn't take part much in these debates. Largely because I didn't care. The team was not close. Shin Soo Choo was not going to make the difference one way or the other. Plus, I thought it was all overblown. I really did think that the Wilpons would open it up when the time was right. But starting last winter, I felt like they were close, and started pushing for the big piece. We didn't get it. At the trade deadline, we were fortunate to secure those missing pieces at a bargain economically, though it did cost us in prospects. And now, this winter, the indications are that the Mets owners are still not ready to spend. I'm fully willing to admit that Megdal may have been right. Look, it doesn't make him a good writer, and I don't buy everything he said still, but he called this, didn't he? But people here are fighting me on this. And I wonder if this has something to do with you. This debate has been ongoing for years. People are entrenched in their positions. Agreeing with me, would essentially mean agreeing with you. And no one wants to do that. I think this is all your fault.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 07:00 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Vic Sage wrote: CF and d'Kong, keep the flame alive! I wasn't happy with our lineup going into 2015, and it wasn't until Cespedes and Conforto joined the returning Wright and d'Arnaud (and Johnson and Uribe won games with the depth they provided) that they went from the worst offense to the best offense in baseball. And now Cespedes and Murphy (probably) are gone, and Wright and d'Arnaud still have ongoing injury concerns, and Cuddyer is washed up, and Lagares can't reallly hit, and Flores doesn't have any range (and just busted his ankle), and our big move to fix this was going to be Zobrist? I didn't think that would be enough. and now they don't even get HIM? And everybody's ok with that, because a 4/yr $56m deal is some sort of crippling deal that would hobble us for years? wow, what total bullshit. I predicted a 4/yr $60m deal for Zobrist, and the sabermetrically minded thought he was worth that and more, but that is an "overpay" we should be glad the Cubs indulged in? The Cubs are going to be one of our main rivals (if not THE main one) to win a pennant this year, and they replaced Starlin with Zobrist (win-win). And what are we doing? bemoaning the fact that Heyward is out of our reach? WHY IS HE OUT OF OUR REACH? Go ahead, people, say it. I want you to say it out loud. Say it!. Because our owners were either stupid or corrupt enough to try and win money in a pyramid scam and, after making consistently big returns in a bear market (at which they did not look too hard), they got wiped out by the guy just above them in the pyramid. And so they hocked everything and the interest hasn't even come due yet, so they still talk like they're a NY team but act like CitiField is in Oakland. We needed Zobrist + Heyward, we could make do with Murphy and Upton, but we're likely headed for Cabrera and Parra, or Span and Desmond (if we get anybody at all). And we're OK with that? The team should be in receivership and run by MLB, like they did with the Dodgers, until real owners are found. In the meantime, we'll just keep whistling past the graveyard and sing "happy days are here again." This has been a message from Philosophers Against the Wilpons... PAW, pushing a rock uphill since December 11, 2008. This. Obviously.

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 07:24 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 09 2015 07:34 PM

Centerfield wrote: This debate has been ongoing for years. People are entrenched in their positions. Agreeing with me, would essentially mean agreeing with you. And no one wants to do that. The years have passed and Sterlingpon can no longer hide behind the ponzi-scheme kilt. That skirt has sailed. CF, you know as much as anyone here that I was the Abe Froman of ostrich. The Ostrich King of Flushing, if you will. Enough is enough. I won't go on and on about it, I'm obnoxious and generally disliked here anyways, in case you haven't heard.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 07:29 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: But people here are fighting me on this. And I wonder if this has something to do with you. This debate has been ongoing for years. People are entrenched in their positions. Agreeing with me, would essentially mean agreeing with you. And no one wants to do that. Please don't buy into the persecution complex. Pretty please.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 07:34 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Edgy MD wrote: Centerfield wrote: But people here are fighting me on this. And I wonder if this has something to do with you. This debate has been ongoing for years. People are entrenched in their positions. Agreeing with me, would essentially mean agreeing with you. And no one wants to do that. Please don't buy into the persecution complex. Pretty please. You don't think there's some truth to it? That you guys don't particularly care for him? I mean, I get it. He's agenda driven. Makes generalizations. Re-posts articles from a dislikeable author. Relentless. I mean, I more or less agree with him and I still don't like him.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 07:39 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

No, there's no truth in the notion that, if I happen to disagree with you about something, it's because, if I agree with you, it would be a tacit admission that batmagadan was right. He's right often enough. He's certainly not right about being a martyr for the truth.

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 07:40 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I like batmags, and we're the poster-children for not getting along (here). I don't see any correlation between his stance and why some posters don't buy the anti-Sterlingpon agenda. Put another way, I don't think people take one side or the other based on the posts of any one poster here whoever that poster may be.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 07:43 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Edgy MD wrote: No, there's no truth in the notion that, if I happen to disagree with you about something, it's because, if I agree with you, it would be a tacit admission that batmagadan was right. He's right often enough. He's certainly not right about being a martyr for the truth. Ok. Fair. Pure speculation on my part. It seemed to me like some of those prior debates a bit heated.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 09 2015 07:52 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Ceetar wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Not hating or bashing. I'm not going to beat this drum all winter. But I'm also not going to sit idly by with blinders on and think the Mets are a well run organization and amply financed. Anyone who does is a sheep. Bahhhhh. They're as well run as any. Better than some. Yeah. In fact, the Mets are so well run that recently, they hadda borrow $25M from the league to meet basic operating expenses. Which would be like you having to beg your worst enemy for a $100 loan to prevent the electric company from turning out your lights.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 09 2015 08:07 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Since everyone else keeps restating their positions, I figure I'll do the same. I want the Wilpons gone. If they can't afford to run this team, they should sell to somebody who can. I think the front office is doing a very good job given the financial limitations they have, limitations that they should NOT have. I think that the Mets are in a great position with their abundance of inexpensive and talented starting pitchers and realize that this is a window that is going to get narrower and narrower over the next few years as Harvey, deGrom, Syndergaard, etc. reach arbitration and ultimately free agency. Because of this, the Mets should maximize this opportunity and add the players they need to make themselves an overwhelming force in the National League so that they can win another pennant or three and, ideally, a World Championship. I realize that there are budgetary reasons that may prevent them from doing this. I have reconciled myself to this. I don't like it. It's frustrating, but not infuriating. I'm going to keep watching and rooting but I'm not going to complain. My lack of complaint should not be interpreted as any kind of endorsement of the Wilpons, or that I'm satisfied with the status quo. It's simply because angst is futile and while I absolutely loved seeing the Mets in the playoffs and World Series, I remain aware that there are many other things in my life that are more important.

Vic Sage Dec 09 2015 08:15 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

It's simply because angst is futile The Philosophers Against Wilpon respectfully disagree. Angst is a boundless font of life energy that can keep you warm in the cold days of December.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 09 2015 08:17 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I think considering the incompetent ownership, the lender-appointed management team has done a fantastic job managing this franchise, making the right decisions with the resources they have, changing course when necessary etc. Not every move has worked out but most big decisions have, and the goofs aren't killing us like they did under the previous moron to have run the team. Regarding 2010, taking it up the ass from the league when the best players you could afford were Shawn Marcum and Jon Rauch sucked but was part of the process of unraveling all the ridiculous and poorly thought out contracts Wilpon Okayed while they went broke. Oh, and I disagree with Batmags often but I think he's swell and a great member of our community. Funniest guy here some days, and that's saying something.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 09 2015 08:20 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Vic Sage wrote: It's simply because angst is futile The Philosophers Against Wilpon respectfully disagree. Angst is a boundless font of life energy that can keep you warm in the cold days of December. To each his own, I guess! Angst just ain't my thing.

Vic Sage Dec 09 2015 08:20 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

agreed, to all of the above.

Vic Sage Dec 09 2015 08:21 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Vic Sage wrote: It's simply because angst is futile The Philosophers Against Wilpon respectfully disagree. Angst is a boundless font of life energy that can keep you warm in the cold days of December. To each his own, I guess! Angst just ain't my thing. then you haven't been doing it right.

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 08:21 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Question: If you're a member of TiTTS, do you have to apply to become a member of PAW or are you grandfathered in?

Vic Sage Dec 09 2015 08:22 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

d'Kong76 wrote: Question: If you're a member of TiTTS, do you have to apply to become a member of PAW or are you grandfathered in? We will uphold your bust with pride and usher you into the meeting hall. There will be mead on tap.

Frayed Knot Dec 09 2015 08:23 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I got a restraining order once for PAWing some TITTS, but that was a long time ago and I no longer have to register my whereabouts with local law enforcement.

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 08:24 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I was gonna go there this morning FK, gmta....

TransMonk Dec 09 2015 08:26 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 09 2015 08:30 PM

I have no love for the Wilpons and wish for them to shake every last nickel out of their wallets to get this team a championship or three before the pitching leaves. Still, I think too many fans believe that the primary goal for sports team owners is winning a championship. Like any other business, they are in it to make money. Yes, typically, winning it all leads to cash, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

Frayed Knot Dec 09 2015 08:29 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

TransMonk wrote: ... I think too many fans believe that the primary goal for sports team owners is winning a championship. Like any other business, they are in it to make money. The biggest problem with the Mets, prior to this recent year, is that they haven't been doing much of either.

Ceetar Dec 09 2015 08:33 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Vic Sage wrote: It's simply because angst is futile The Philosophers Against Wilpon respectfully disagree. Angst is a boundless font of life energy that can keep you warm in the cold days of December. I generally use beer for this, and don't generally find myself cold. I've got enough angst with my own finances.

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 08:33 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

TransMonk wrote: I have no love for the Wilpons and wish love for them to shake every last nickel out of their wallets to get this team a championship or three before the pitching leaves. Striking while the pitching iron is hot really needs to be a theme. Maybe a new thread is in order. We didn't get Zobrist and it's looking like we'll likely get dick this off-season.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 08:35 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Where do I collect on this dick I've been promised?

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 08:40 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I'm more into TiTTS, you'll have to find your own dick. I can't wait to hear a Zobrist quote about the Chicago suburbs and schools were more enticing that those in Westchester/CT.

Ceetar Dec 09 2015 08:40 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Edgy MD wrote: Where do I collect on this dick I've been promised? [url]https://newyork.craigslist.org/search/que/cas?query=flushing

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 09 2015 08:43 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

And another thing, it's just mid-boggling how quick people are willing to ignore just how inept these owners are because the Mets went to the WS. I think a reasonable person could argue that getting to the World Series means that the owners are not as inept as you claim. Or does this mean that there are 28 other owners who are more inept, and just one who is more skilled?

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 08:47 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think a reasonable person could argue that getting to the World Series means that the owners are not as inept as you claim. Or does this mean that there are 28 other owners who are more inept, and just one who is more skilled? I think a reasonable person could argue the Mets were lucky and got to the WS in spite of their owners. We can do this all winter.

Edgy MD Dec 09 2015 08:50 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

The key is to accept that reasonable people can disagree, and not that people who don't see it the same way are necessarily crazy or biased. OE: Or a fat, wooly sheep!

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 08:52 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Imagine, it's easy if you try.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 10:01 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Since everyone else keeps restating their positions, I figure I'll do the same. I want the Wilpons gone. If they can't afford to run this team, they should sell to somebody who can. I think the front office is doing a very good job given the financial limitations they have, limitations that they should NOT have. I think that the Mets are in a great position with their abundance of inexpensive and talented starting pitchers and realize that this is a window that is going to get narrower and narrower over the next few years as Harvey, deGrom, Syndergaard, etc. reach arbitration and ultimately free agency. Because of this, the Mets should maximize this opportunity and add the players they need to make themselves an overwhelming force in the National League so that they can win another pennant or three and, ideally, a World Championship. I realize that there are budgetary reasons that may prevent them from doing this. I have reconciled myself to this. I don't like it. It's frustrating, but not infuriating. I'm going to keep watching and rooting but I'm not going to complain. My lack of complaint should not be interpreted as any kind of endorsement of the Wilpons, or that I'm satisfied with the status quo. It's simply because angst is futile and while I absolutely loved seeing the Mets in the playoffs and World Series, I remain aware that there are many other things in my life that are more important. BG is like me, except like, he's a grown up and shows maturity and self-restraint.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 10:05 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think considering the incompetent ownership, the lender-appointed management team has done a fantastic job managing this franchise, making the right decisions with the resources they have, changing course when necessary etc. Not every move has worked out but most big decisions have, and the goofs aren't killing us like they did under the previous moron to have run the team. Regarding 2010, taking it up the ass from the league when the best players you could afford were Shawn Marcum and Jon Rauch sucked but was part of the process of unraveling all the ridiculous and poorly thought out contracts Wilpon Okayed while they went broke. Oh, and I disagree with Batmags often but I think he's swell and a great member of our community. Funniest guy here some days, and that's saying something. Great summary. I can't tell if you're kidding or not, but do you think the management team really is lender appointed?

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 09 2015 10:38 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I don't want them to sign a bunch of really bad deals now just to prove that they a big market team, then be saddled with bad contracts on old players when it comes time to ink the big deals for the young pitchers when they are ready to get paid.

d'Kong76 Dec 09 2015 10:46 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

No one here wants spending for sake of spending, nor being saddled with bad contracts. I don't get why people don't see they're still broke (or cheap).

TransMonk Dec 09 2015 10:51 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

d'Kong76 wrote: No one here wants spending for sake of spending, nor being saddled with bad contracts. I don't get why people don't see they're still broke (or cheap). But where do you draw the line between broke or cheap and cost efficient? Just an honest question from a devil's advocate who mostly agrees with the "F the Wilpons" side.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 09 2015 11:02 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

d'Kong76 wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think a reasonable person could argue that getting to the World Series means that the owners are not as inept as you claim. Or does this mean that there are 28 other owners who are more inept, and just one who is more skilled? I think a reasonable person could argue the Mets were lucky and got to the WS in spite of their owners. Jesus Christ, I'm starting to agree with this fucker.

Centerfield Dec 09 2015 11:24 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

TransMonk wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: No one here wants spending for sake of spending, nor being saddled with bad contracts. I don't get why people don't see they're still broke (or cheap). But where do you draw the line between broke or cheap and cost efficient? Just an honest question from a devil's advocate who mostly agrees with the "F the Wilpons" side. I never saw that as a line between the two since I view them as different concepts. Cheap/broke means you don't fund the team with the payroll it needs to compete. The payroll should be commensurate with industry standard for the market you play in. So, in other words, this is the actual money spent. Cost efficiency is the manner in which that money is spent. A low budget team can spend money foolishly. A top tier payroll can still be spent in a cost-efficient manner.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 09 2015 11:45 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: BG is like me, except like, he's a grown up and shows maturity and self-restraint. I wonder how and when that happened??

TransMonk Dec 09 2015 11:50 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: The payroll should be commensurate with industry standard for the market you play in. This is where you are going to bang your head against the wall every time. Should? Maybe. But payroll is set by the payee based on their business plan for making maximum profit on their investment. Championship optional.

Edgy MD Dec 10 2015 12:19 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I don't believe the owners aren't interested in winning/are solely interested in profit. The real profit in sports ownership doesn't come so much revenues as it does from appreciation. I believe reality has made clear that they have to pursue this while trying to get the organization out from under its debt burden. Please don't read that as me liking them. I don't, apart from the occasional bike.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 10 2015 12:36 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: I think considering the incompetent ownership, the lender-appointed management team has done a fantastic job managing this franchise, making the right decisions with the resources they have, changing course when necessary etc. Not every move has worked out but most big decisions have, and the goofs aren't killing us like they did under the previous moron to have run the team. Regarding 2010, taking it up the ass from the league when the best players you could afford were Shawn Marcum and Jon Rauch sucked but was part of the process of unraveling all the ridiculous and poorly thought out contracts Wilpon Okayed while they went broke. Oh, and I disagree with Batmags often but I think he's swell and a great member of our community. Funniest guy here some days, and that's saying something. Great summary. I can't tell if you're kidding or not, but do you think the management team really is lender appointed? Sort of. Really, Fred deferred to Selig for blessing of the last 2 Mets GMs: I think in appointing Minaya, the objective was in carrying out Bud's minority-hiring mandate on a visible scale. It was admirable in some ways but not great for us inasmuch as it came at a time when smart organizations were getting rid of old scouts as GMs and hiring young geniuses. When the time came to appoint his successor the Mets were in deep financial trouble including a $25M debt to MLB. Alderson was working for MLB at that time and so needed Bud's okay to take the job. It thought of this as the kind of situation you see in business when a poorly run company gets an activist shareholder who appoints a new board and installs new management, but it probably wasn't that way since all Bud had to do was ask and Fred said sure, I'm sure.

Edgy MD Dec 10 2015 01:12 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think in appointing Minaya, the objective was in carrying out Bud's minority-hiring mandate on a visible scale. This, to me, is the real Wilpon/Selig conspiracy thingie the would-be Megdals should be chipping away at.

Centerfield Dec 10 2015 01:28 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

TransMonk wrote: Centerfield wrote: The payroll should be commensurate with industry standard for the market you play in. This is where you are going to bang your head against the wall every time. Should? Maybe. But payroll is set by the payee based on their business plan for making maximum profit on their investment. Championship optional. I'm not sure I understand your post. I think payroll is set by the payer, not the payee. In any case, the point I was trying to make is that larger market teams should be at the top of the list. You'd expect smaller market teams to round out the bottom.

Edgy MD Dec 10 2015 01:30 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

"Fred." [list]"Bud, how's it going? Great meetings this year by the way."[/list:u] "Thanks. I thought people were very receptive at the last meeting to the minority hiring policies." [list]"Great policies, Bud. Great policies. Very bold of you."[/list:u] "You think so? The problem is, where does it leave us? Forcing people to interview the same guys over and over because so few minority guys have made it up the pipeline." [list]"I guess the fruits of this won't be immediate."[/list:u] "I'm kind of hoping they are." [list]"Really? Who's your man?"[/list:u] "You are." [list]"Sorry?"[/list:u] "I'm talking about Omar." [list]"Hey, um, slow down a bit. I'm just getting control of this team. We're coming off a World Series, Bud. We have a GM, and he's riding a pennant with us right now."[/list:u] "But you like Omar ..." [list]"I love Omar. But Bud, I have to be frank. I don't see him that way. He's got a great eye for talent. Sammy fucking Sosa, yeah, but goofy talent too, like Timo and Melvin Mora. But running a hundred million dollar budget? Building a development staff? Setting policy? That's just not his skill set. We've had him in the organization since he was a teenager. No college. No experience."[/list:u] "I can take care of that last part." [list]"Come again?"[/list:u] "The Expos, Fred. I'm the de facto president of that club, and as long as we own them, I intend to use them as a lab. An experience factory." [list]"So he gets an internship with the Expos, and I'm supposed to hire him a few years down the road."[/list:u] "When you have an opening." [list]"If I have an opening and I still don't think he's ready?"[/list:u] "Hire an interim. We'll have him ready." [list]"I don't know, Bud. This team is finally going to be mine. We're finally getting out from under that stupid cable deal we were locked into..."[/list:u] "...stupid..." [list]"...and we have a real chance to blow the budget back up for the first time in a while. Do I really want a neophyte running the show that we hired for, I'll be frank, non-business reasons?"[/list:u] "He'll be ready. And so will the league." [list]"Come again?"[/list:u] "Fred, someday you're going to need a friend in the league office. Maybe even soon. Your purchase of the team isn't even complete yet." [list]"I'm confident that will go through."[/list:u] "You can be absolutely confident. But... can I be similarly confident in you?" [list]"Let me think about this."[/list:u] "Of course. Take all the time you need. I'll talk to you again in an hour." ______________ That's the real Fred Wilpon miss to me.

d'Kong76 Dec 10 2015 01:36 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

This thread may never end. Ya know what I'm saying?

TransMonk Dec 10 2015 01:55 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: I'm not sure I understand your post. I think payroll is set by the payer, not the payee. Yes, payer. I'm a dope.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 10 2015 03:36 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

If you're tired of Howie Megdal telling you about the Mets paupery, then read it in the New York Times. Michael Powell mocks Zobrist as a Plan A and writes, essentially, that the Wilpons should sell the team if free agents like Yoenis Cespedes are out of the question and beyond reach. [fimg=444]http://a1.nyt.com/assets/article/20151208-125316/images/foundation/logos/nyt-logo-185x26.svg[/fimg] Good News: Mets Lose Out on Ben Zobrist Sports of The Times By MICHAEL POWELL DEC. 9, 2015 Ben Zobrist, the apple of the Mets’ eye this off-season, decided to spurn the family Wilpon and sign with the Chicago Cubs. Chicago’s proximity to Zobrist’s family home in Nashville was said to play a role. That would have made sense when paddle-wheel riverboats were the preferred means of transport, but less so since Orville Wright and the advent of winged flying devices. (Chicago is 1 hour 20 minutes by plane from Nashville; New York City is 2:20.) More likely, the fact that Cubs Manager Joe Maddon and Zobrist enjoyed many years together with Tampa Bay was the deciding factor. And Theo Epstein, the Cubs’ president, has displayed a willingness to spend and spend again. The Wilpons have displayed no willingness to do any such thing. Still, this is a good test for the Mets. Zobrist, who will be 35 in May, was the wrong player at the wrong time for the Mets, who offer a peculiar mix of fuzzy-cheeked youth and the creaky-boned aged. By the spring, this team will have a 37-year-old left fielder, a 35-year-old right fielder and a sore-backed 33-year-old third baseman. It did not need to pay a new second baseman until the cusp of his fifth decade. Instead, the Mets, blessed with an abundance of strong pitching arms, need to pursue a genuine power hitter, like that fellow Yoenis Cespedes, who patrolled the outfield and led the team during its stirring pennant run last season. If not Cespedes for the rest of us — the Mets pretend to have all but lost his telephone number — then two other top free-agent outfielders loom: Justin Upton, 28, and Jason Heyward, 26. To type this is to risk marking yourself as an unserious man as so many fall over themselves to explain that the Mets cannot possibly afford to compete with the likes of Chicago, Boston, the Dodgers, the Angels and, perhaps, even Kansas City. On Wednesday, the Mets traded for a second baseman, picking up Neil Walker from the Pittsburgh Pirates for an expendable starting pitcher, Jon Niese. It was a nice trade and perfectly small-bore Mets. It was a cash wash. Later that night, they continued to reshape their infield, adding Asdrubal Cabrera, a former All-Star who ranks among the poorest defensive shortstops in baseball, on a two-year deal believed to be worth a modest $18 million. Still, however much Sandy Alderson, an astute baseball man, enjoyed Oakland and San Diego, and however much the Wilpons might enjoy visiting Milwaukee, the Mets fit no definition of a midmarket team. Flushing, Queens — for better and worse — is not Cleveland. The Mets’ claim of sackcloth poverty seems worth interrogating. The Wilpons trusted their grifter friend Bernard L. Madoff, and so fell on hard times. And the debt service on their new stadium is pretty high. But as Howard Megdal of Capital New York has noted, somewhere between $45 million and $60 million rained down upon the Wilpons in this autumn’s baseball festivities. Ratings and ad rates are up significantly on SNY, in which the Mets own a majority share. And as my colleague Richard Sandomir has noted, ticket sales are up. Then there’s the fact that Alderson and Mets management insisted for years that if only fans came out in greater numbers, the team would spend more. Typically in American capitalism, you produce a better product, and sales rise. Whatever; it worked. Baseball’s commissioner, Rob Manfred, seems intent on responding as Bud Selig did to his old friends the Wilpons: Manfred is playing the avuncular enabler. “I think clubs should and do spend commensurate with the revenues that are available to them,” Manfred said recently. This is silliness. New York City’s veins are clotted with young masters and mistresses of the universe who would love to own the bauble known as a major league franchise. The Wilpons could put the team on the market Monday and count their billion-plus dollars by Friday. As for free agency, the Wilpons would do well to start with what they had: Cespedes. The Mets lack many coaches who can speak Spanish, but in a city nearly half black and Latino, you might expect a black Cuban to present the team with intriguing marketing possibilities. As to his play, Cespedes is not Willie Mays. He is like a hound after a hare to high fastballs. He swings at a few too many curves off the low outside corner. (These are not disabilities unique to him; Fangraphs has documented that Mike Trout has the same weakness for high, hard stuff.) Nor was Cespedes spectacular in the postseason, although he did hit two home runs and knock in seven runs in nine playoff games before the World Series. Like most of the Mets, he had a bad five-game stretch in the Series. His fielding in center field in the postseason bore a resemblance to soccer. That said, he is a natural left fielder, and for his work there with the Detroit Tigers in the first half of 2015, he just won a Gold Glove. His arm is like a javelin in the hands of Achilles: deadly. As Fangraphs wrote, if he stayed put in left field, he would rate “among the best full-time players.” Mets management tells reporters — sotto voce — that were it to give Cespedes his desired long-term contract, he would be 36 at the end of it. This is a curious plaint, as the team offered a four-year contract to an infielder who would have been 38 when the deal ended. The Mets have reached an inflection point. They have a phalanx of terrific young starting pitchers who can toss nasty curves and dial fastballs at close to 100 miles per hour. The actuarial odds are that one of them might tear an elbow tendon, and the economic odds are that one or more might leave for free agency. As the Mets learned in the soporific days of June and July, baseball teams cannot live on pitching alone. Someone has to hit. Catcher Travis d’Arnaud might stay healthy all year, although he has not managed that feat yet. And Michael Conforto, in his second season, might blast more home runs. But after 174 regular-season at-bats in the major leagues, Conforto will confront pitchers who have studied his weaknesses. Let’s say he hits .260 with 24 home runs. That is a nice sophomore year, and no shame there. He might not be ready to carry the team. The Angels are circling Upton. God only knows how many general managers are whispering sweet things into Heyward’s ears. One World Series is no guarantee of another. You wonder if the Wilpons realize they are not running Tampa Bay. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/sport ... -mets.html

Centerfield Dec 10 2015 03:43 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

If you're tired of Howie Megdal telling you about the Mets paupery, then read it in the New York Times. Michael Powell mocks Zobrist as a Plan A and writes, essentially, that the Wilpons should sell the team if free agents like Yoenis Cespedes are out of the question and beyond reach. [fimg=444]http://a1.nyt.com/assets/article/20151208-125316/images/foundation/logos/nyt-logo-185x26.svg[/fimg] Good News: Mets Lose Out on Ben Zobrist Sports of The Times By MICHAEL POWELL DEC. 9, 2015 Ben Zobrist, the apple of the Mets’ eye this off-season, decided to spurn the family Wilpon and sign with the Chicago Cubs. Chicago’s proximity to Zobrist’s family home in Nashville was said to play a role. That would have made sense when paddle-wheel riverboats were the preferred means of transport, but less so since Orville Wright and the advent of winged flying devices. (Chicago is 1 hour 20 minutes by plane from Nashville; New York City is 2:20.) More likely, the fact that Cubs Manager Joe Maddon and Zobrist enjoyed many years together with Tampa Bay was the deciding factor. And Theo Epstein, the Cubs’ president, has displayed a willingness to spend and spend again. The Wilpons have displayed no willingness to do any such thing. Still, this is a good test for the Mets. Zobrist, who will be 35 in May, was the wrong player at the wrong time for the Mets, who offer a peculiar mix of fuzzy-cheeked youth and the creaky-boned aged. By the spring, this team will have a 37-year-old left fielder, a 35-year-old right fielder and a sore-backed 33-year-old third baseman. It did not need to pay a new second baseman until the cusp of his fifth decade. Instead, the Mets, blessed with an abundance of strong pitching arms, need to pursue a genuine power hitter, like that fellow Yoenis Cespedes, who patrolled the outfield and led the team during its stirring pennant run last season. If not Cespedes for the rest of us — the Mets pretend to have all but lost his telephone number — then two other top free-agent outfielders loom: Justin Upton, 28, and Jason Heyward, 26. To type this is to risk marking yourself as an unserious man as so many fall over themselves to explain that the Mets cannot possibly afford to compete with the likes of Chicago, Boston, the Dodgers, the Angels and, perhaps, even Kansas City. On Wednesday, the Mets traded for a second baseman, picking up Neil Walker from the Pittsburgh Pirates for an expendable starting pitcher, Jon Niese. It was a nice trade and perfectly small-bore Mets. It was a cash wash. Later that night, they continued to reshape their infield, adding Asdrubal Cabrera, a former All-Star who ranks among the poorest defensive shortstops in baseball, on a two-year deal believed to be worth a modest $18 million. Still, however much Sandy Alderson, an astute baseball man, enjoyed Oakland and San Diego, and however much the Wilpons might enjoy visiting Milwaukee, the Mets fit no definition of a midmarket team. Flushing, Queens — for better and worse — is not Cleveland. The Mets’ claim of sackcloth poverty seems worth interrogating. The Wilpons trusted their grifter friend Bernard L. Madoff, and so fell on hard times. And the debt service on their new stadium is pretty high. But as Howard Megdal of Capital New York has noted, somewhere between $45 million and $60 million rained down upon the Wilpons in this autumn’s baseball festivities. Ratings and ad rates are up significantly on SNY, in which the Mets own a majority share. And as my colleague Richard Sandomir has noted, ticket sales are up. Then there’s the fact that Alderson and Mets management insisted for years that if only fans came out in greater numbers, the team would spend more. Typically in American capitalism, you produce a better product, and sales rise. Whatever; it worked. Baseball’s commissioner, Rob Manfred, seems intent on responding as Bud Selig did to his old friends the Wilpons: Manfred is playing the avuncular enabler. “I think clubs should and do spend commensurate with the revenues that are available to them,” Manfred said recently. This is silliness. New York City’s veins are clotted with young masters and mistresses of the universe who would love to own the bauble known as a major league franchise. The Wilpons could put the team on the market Monday and count their billion-plus dollars by Friday. As for free agency, the Wilpons would do well to start with what they had: Cespedes. The Mets lack many coaches who can speak Spanish, but in a city nearly half black and Latino, you might expect a black Cuban to present the team with intriguing marketing possibilities. As to his play, Cespedes is not Willie Mays. He is like a hound after a hare to high fastballs. He swings at a few too many curves off the low outside corner. (These are not disabilities unique to him; Fangraphs has documented that Mike Trout has the same weakness for high, hard stuff.) Nor was Cespedes spectacular in the postseason, although he did hit two home runs and knock in seven runs in nine playoff games before the World Series. Like most of the Mets, he had a bad five-game stretch in the Series. His fielding in center field in the postseason bore a resemblance to soccer. That said, he is a natural left fielder, and for his work there with the Detroit Tigers in the first half of 2015, he just won a Gold Glove. His arm is like a javelin in the hands of Achilles: deadly. As Fangraphs wrote, if he stayed put in left field, he would rate “among the best full-time players.” Mets management tells reporters — sotto voce — that were it to give Cespedes his desired long-term contract, he would be 36 at the end of it. This is a curious plaint, as the team offered a four-year contract to an infielder who would have been 38 when the deal ended. The Mets have reached an inflection point. They have a phalanx of terrific young starting pitchers who can toss nasty curves and dial fastballs at close to 100 miles per hour. The actuarial odds are that one of them might tear an elbow tendon, and the economic odds are that one or more might leave for free agency. As the Mets learned in the soporific days of June and July, baseball teams cannot live on pitching alone. Someone has to hit. Catcher Travis d’Arnaud might stay healthy all year, although he has not managed that feat yet. And Michael Conforto, in his second season, might blast more home runs. But after 174 regular-season at-bats in the major leagues, Conforto will confront pitchers who have studied his weaknesses. Let’s say he hits .260 with 24 home runs. That is a nice sophomore year, and no shame there. He might not be ready to carry the team. The Angels are circling Upton. God only knows how many general managers are whispering sweet things into Heyward’s ears. One World Series is no guarantee of another. You wonder if the Wilpons realize they are not running Tampa Bay. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/sport ... -mets.html HR for Michael Powell.

Ceetar Dec 10 2015 03:50 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

"Waah, the Mets signed Cabrera who hit like Cespedes in the second half and plays a better position, that must mean they're cheap because they didn't do what I wanted them to!"

Edgy MD Dec 10 2015 03:53 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I'm more chagrined at trying to sustain they're too cheap to outbid the Cubs on Zobrist which would have been stupid anyway. Which is it?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 10 2015 03:53 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Good job on the smartiness, needs work on the fartiness.

Centerfield Dec 10 2015 04:02 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Edgy MD wrote: I'm more chagrined at trying to sustain they're too cheap to outbid the Cubs on Zobrist which would have been stupid anyway. Which is it? I don't think he ever said that they were too cheap to outbid the Cubs on Zobrist. He says that pursuing Zobrist was misguided in the first place. I agree. He says that the Cubs are showing a willingness to spend even more (they have been linked to Hayward) while the Mets have not. I agree with that as well. He surmises that this may have influenced Zobrist's decision. I don't know about this. I think only Zobrist can answer that.

Edgy MD Dec 10 2015 04:11 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

OK, too cheap to impress Zobrist with their ability to outbid all comers on him and then spend more and more on others. I think only Zobrist can answer that. [fimg=400]https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/julianna-zobrist-8.jpg[/fimg] I WILL SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE ZOBRIST FAMILY, HUMAN!

d'Kong76 Dec 10 2015 04:19 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: He says that the Cubs are showing a willingness to spend even more (they have been linked to Hayward) while the Mets have not. I agree with that as well. The Cubs smelled success and want to sniff it some more next year. The Mets want to sniff the cash they got in late Aug, Sept, and the post season and their champagne farts.

Edgy MD Dec 10 2015 04:54 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Hard to tell how much is Sandy at the stick right now and how much is Ricco*. I'm also curious how much commitment I should show to the idea that Ricco is the designated successor, rather than Ricciardi or DePodesta. * OE: Or Jeff Wilpon!

Ceetar Dec 10 2015 04:59 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Edgy MD wrote: Hard to tell how much is Sandy at the stick right now and how much is Ricco*. I'm also curious how much commitment I should show to the idea that Ricco is the designated successor, rather than Ricciardi or DePodesta. * OE: Or Jeff Wilpon! I think Ricco's the designated interim guy (he was last time too right?) and the others have more regular duties that you don't want to pull them away from. But this question might become relevant pretty fast.

d'Kong76 Dec 10 2015 07:04 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Jesus Christ, I'm starting to agree with this fucker. Hey, be nice!!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 10 2015 07:12 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Edgy MD wrote: [fimg=400]https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/julianna-zobrist-8.jpg[/fimg] I WILL SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE ZOBRIST FAMILY, HUMAN! The more I hear/see of Sister Christian over here, the more I think we dodged, like, a demon in human drag type bullet. #NoGuaranteedFourthYearForDaemonConsorts

d'Kong76 Dec 10 2015 07:15 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I didn't want to say it, but since you did, I'll echo that...

Lefty Specialist Dec 10 2015 08:23 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Edgy MD wrote: [fimg=400]https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/julianna-zobrist-8.jpg[/fimg] I WILL SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE ZOBRIST FAMILY, HUMAN! The more I hear/see of Sister Christian over here, the more I think we dodged, like, a demon in human drag type bullet. #NoGuaranteedFourthYearForDaemonConsorts Yeah, she's creeping me out. Neil Walker-remarkably devoid of creepiness.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 10 2015 08:30 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I WILL KILL YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS

d'Kong76 Dec 10 2015 08:42 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

And a one, and a two... take me out to the....

batmagadanleadoff Dec 12 2015 09:46 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Here's Howie ... Sports biz report: Mets take the non-contender road in Nashville By Howard Megdal 11:30 a.m. | Dec. 11, 2015 The Mets have done the heavy lifting (relatively for them) of the offseason this week at the MLB winter meetings in Nashville, and we have a far better sense of what they will and won't be in 2016. What they won't be, clearly, is a team that in any way takes advantage of the remarkably rare collection of young, cost-controlled starting pitching to build a team best-equipped to challenge for the World Series, despite promises from owner Fred Wilpon and others in the front office that when more fans showed up, the Mets would resume spending like a real team, rather than a Ponzi scheme operating out of a baseball stadium. The Mets went after Ben Zobrist, a utility infielder/outfielder whose price reached $58 million over four years, the contract he signed with the Cubs. Denied Zobrist, the Mets traded starting pitcher Jon Niese to the Pirates for second baseman Neil Walker, and signed shortstop Asdrubal Cabrera to a two-year, $18.5 million contract. The two new infielders will help the cause—the Mets had a pair of shortstops on the roster, Ruben Tejada and Wilmer Flores, and they are currently recovering from a broken leg and a broken ankle, respectively. Walker will replace most of Daniel Murphy's regular season offensive production. But neither move is likely to improve much upon what the Mets received from those positions during the 2015 season defensively, while merely maintaining a status quo that had the Mets last in the National League in runs scored at the end of July. What the Mets aren't doing, it seems, is making the slightest effort to re-sign Yoenis Cespedes, whose offense fundamentally changed the team's fortunes, nor adding any pieces that would allow for a scenario where the hitting isn't reliant on Travis d'Arnaud and David Wright staying healthy all season. The former is a catcher who simply never has, while the latter has a degenerative back condition so serious that the Mets didn't believe he was coming back at all for a significant portion of the 2015 season. A team that plays in New York, with owners who also have a majority stake in SNY, the sports network which shows the Mets, a team that took in anywhere from $45-60 million in extra revenue from the postseason alone—that team isn't making an effort to add Cespedes, or a perfect free agent like Jason Heyward. Heyward is a top-ten MLB talent who will command around $200 million over the next decade, and he is the rare free agent young enough to be signed for mostly prime seasons by whichever team does so. Accordingly, the brightest front offices in baseball, like the Cubs and Cardinals, are after him. In both instances, the Mets' decision to stand pat with relatively little additional talent are in stark contrast to a pair of National League clubs they'll conceivably have to beat to reach another World Series. The Cardinals, with a payroll significantly ahead of the Mets already, won 100 games last year. But they are making every effort to retain Heyward, took on Jedd Gjorko, gave a two-year deal to reliever Jonathan Broxton, and appear to be just getting started. As for the Cubs, they not only won Zobrist at $58 million over the next four years, they also added John Lackey, a starting pitcher, for $34 million over the next two seasons. And to that, they are hoping to bring Heyward at around $200 million into the mix as well. This is what contending teams do. Money spent on talent is a truism in the non-Mets portion of MLB. But it is particularly important when teams are contending—the idea is you are buying wins, and the wins that get you into the playoffs and further along in those playoffs are by far the most important, most valuable ones to purchase. But an ownership group that never tires of diverting revenues from the baseball team and sports network into non-baseball pursuits has made a different calculation, for either reasons of exigency or because baseball isn't putting a stop to it they way it did with Frank McCourt and the Los Angeles Dodgers. So the Mets' pitching is a gift. It's just one that the Mets aren't either inclined or unable to leverage in any real way. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/c ... -nashville

d'Kong76 Dec 19 2015 01:18 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

It's the weekend before xmas, I guess they're done for 2015. My guess is this is what they to spring training with. Better or worse than what they went with last year? I'd say worse.

Centerfield Dec 19 2015 04:42 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I think they will add at least one more hitter, likely 2, and will add one more reliever. I don't think they will add any hitter that I want though. I think they are already better than they were going into last spring. Conforto is better than Cuddyer. Walker and Murphy are just about a wash. Cabrera is (though marginal) an improvement over Tejada/Flores. I think they will be a good team. And will be favorites to win the NL East. The thing is, the Mets had an opportunity this year to be great. They could have been great for the next many years. And they could have done it by raising payroll, or even just spending differently. But they punted on great. They played it safe and went for "good enough" instead. Get used to it guys. What you see now is as good as it's ever going to get.

bmfc1 Dec 19 2015 03:44 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I agree with CF. The Mets will add Ryan Rayburn or someone like that, a righty reliever, and go to Spring Training as the favorites in the East. I think that they think that they can pull a rabbit out of a hat again at the trade deadline, if needed, but other teams have seen that trick so it will be tougher to pull off a second time. I fear that they are relying too much on anticipated success by d'Arnaud and Conforto and the health of Wright. Getting a better bat for the OF would help prevent such reliance. Maybe they'll sign Span for a short-term deal. That helps "lengthen" the lineup as he leads off so Granderson can move down. http://nypost.com/2015/12/18/mets-check ... placement/

A Boy Named Seo Dec 19 2015 05:14 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

bmfc1 wrote: I agree with CF. The Mets will add Ryan Rayburn or someone like that, a righty reliever, and go to Spring Training as the favorites in the East. I think that they think that they can pull a rabbit out of a hat again at the trade deadline, if needed, but other teams have seen that trick so it will be tougher to pull off a second time. I fear that they are relying too much on anticipated success by d'Arnaud and Conforto and the health of Wright. Getting a better bat for the OF would help prevent such reliance. Maybe they'll sign Span for a short-term deal. That helps "lengthen" the lineup as he leads off so Granderson can move down. http://nypost.com/2015/12/18/mets-check ... placement/ Agreed, agreed. I suspect they're trying to put the most competent team out without getting crippled by long contracts and I think they're succeeding in that regard. Gotta try and extend these pitchers long-term sometime soon. With Heyward or Upton on the books, it'd be harder for these Mets to do that. I also think they'll lean heavily on a trade or 2 again in July to fill whatever holes have opened up by then. Just how it is.

d'Kong76 Dec 19 2015 06:14 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

So I can come in off the ledge then for now?

Frayed Knot Dec 21 2015 04:19 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

bmfc1: The Mets will add Ryan Rayburn or someone like that, a righty reliever, and go to Spring Training as the favorites in the East. I think that they think that they can pull a rabbit out of a hat again at the trade deadline, if needed, but other teams have seen that trick so it will be tougher to pull off a second time. I fear that they are relying too much on anticipated success by d'Arnaud and Conforto and the health of Wright. Getting a better bat for the OF would help prevent such reliance. Boy Named Seo: I suspect they're trying to put the most competent team out without getting crippled by long contracts and I think they're succeeding in that regard. Gotta try and extend these pitchers long-term sometime soon. With Heyward or Upton on the books, it'd be harder for these Mets to do that. I also think they'll lean heavily on a trade or 2 again in July to fill whatever holes have opened up by then. Just how it is. I agree that their strategy is mostly a case of trying to ‘plug the holes’, of improving the overall offense by reducing the downside rather than trying for the home run move to upgrade the top end with the huge commitment that goes along with it. Now of course whether you believe that to be a choice or a necessity is, as always, up for debate. As I said a handful of times during the first half of the 2015 season, the half-season-long ‘Noffense’ wasn’t only that we ran into a couple key injuries but that the contingency plans for those holes failed so miserably. Some maybe were predictable in that players got exposed when turned into full-timers (Campbell), or not yet ready for the big time (Herrera, Plawecki), while others should have been better (Mayberry, Nieuwenhuis) but simply weren’t. The bottom line was that, of the 23 non-pitchers to see time this past season, more than 18% of the entire year’s ABs (approx. 2 of every 11 ABs) went to the collective mob of Dilson Herrera, Nieuwenhuis, Ceciliani, Plawecki, Campbell, JM Jr, Recker, Muno, Monell, & EY Jr. (add in the pitchers and it’s 25% of all 2015 ABs). And that group of ten ranked 13th (Herrera) then 15th-23rd (of 23) in RC/G (IOW, not just less production but the worst rates of production - Lagares was 14th) while hitting a collective .191/.258/.299 over nearly 1,000 ABs and whiffing over 30% of the time. Not one of them hit over .211 individually (Dilson) and they combined for just 19 HRs So (Seo) the plan this year, it seems to me, is to reduce the holes in the ‘secondary’ and have a lot fewer ‘give-away’ at bats because the depth is better. Specifically, Recker’s ABs go to Plawecki who’ll ideally get maybe 1/4 of the catcher time instead of fully half of it. Wright’s missed time in 2016 (in addition to being hopefully smaller) will go to whichever of Tejada / Flores / Walker / Cabrerra is sitting that day rather than Campbell. Mayberry, Cuddyer, Ceciliani, and maybe even Nieuwenhuis’s slack will be picked up by increased Conforto time plus the combo of Lagares and his (anticipated) future running mate. There’ll certainly still be a black hole or two somewhere (there always is) but a number of last year’s full-timers or first backups are slated to be this coming season’s no-timers (Cuddyer, JMJ) or platoon players (Flores/Tejada, Plawecki, Lagares) who’ll then be the guys who move up to replace injuries. And if all that doesn’t create an offense that’s better than DFL* in the first half like last year then, yeah, they’re going to have to go out and pull a mid-season deal again - something maybe they couldn’t do if they committed to a big deal now. But I don’t get the part about that being tougher to pull off; mid-season trades have been going on since the game began and it’s not like other teams can do something to prevent it simply because we did one last year. No guarantee that the next one will work out as well as it did in 2015 but those deals are always a gamble. * dead fuckin’ last

Fman99 Dec 21 2015 05:04 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I WILL KILL YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS Oh, so I'm the ONLY ONE who wants to take a crack at an unhinged blonde woman? YOU'RE ALL LYING TO YOURSELVES. Hypocrites.

Edgy MD Dec 21 2015 02:24 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

If that's their strategy, as it seemingly is, the team is putting a lot of pressure on themselves to tie up these pitchers past their arbitration years. Perhaps when Bryce Harper hits the market in 2019, we're going to see a $40 million-a-year guy.

Frayed Knot Dec 21 2015 03:05 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Well it doesn't mean this needs to be their strategy for ever and ever, only that it seems to be right now.

Centerfield Dec 21 2015 03:07 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Frayed Knot wrote: But I don’t get the part about that being tougher to pull off; mid-season trades have been going on since the game began and it’s not like other teams can do something to prevent it simply because we did one last year. No guarantee that the next one will work out as well as it did in 2015 but those deals are always a gamble. I don't know what others think, but I've said stuff along these lines. Mainly as a warning to the "And if we need another big bat, we'll just get one at the trade deadline like we did this year" crowd. These trades are always tough. It's risky to just go into a season half-cocked thinking you can just go shopping at the Big Hitter Store in July. And that assumes you are even in the mix by that point, though I'd guess with this team and this division, you'd expect the Mets to at least be in the neighborhood. The reason I think a deadline deal will tougher in particular in 2016 is because the 2016 free agent class looks incredibly weak. Rentals don't make up the entire market in July, but they are the players most likely to be traded. In 2015, there was an incredible amount of activity. The following nine players all changed teams: Gerardo Parra Yoenis Cespedes Scott Kazmir Ben Zobrist Johnny Cueto David Price Troy Tulowitzki Cole Hamels Carlos Gomez Of these 9 players, the first 6 were rentals and are now free agents. 2016's rental market will not be anywhere near as talented, nor as deep. Strasburg will be the one starting pitcher, but you'd think Washington would have to have a disastrous first half to think of moving him. Of the hitters only Edwin Encarnacion and Jose Bautista seem to be difference makers, but again, you'd guess Toronto would be hanging around. And sure, players under team control will surely be available, but the market will likely not be as deep as it was in 2015. Plus, deadline deals mean giving up prospects. And we already traded away Michael Fullmer. We also gave up a lot of ancillary pieces for the other moves last July. If you continue to utilize this philosophy, your farm system will dry up pretty fast. So, in summary: Fewer targets available + thinner farm system = Harder to do a deadline deal in 2016 It's funny that the "don't overspend" crowd has a lot of overlap with the "get a hitter at the deadline crowd". Getting a hitter at the deadline means you give up young players, and works against the philosophy of focusing on scouting and development. This is why I've been pushing so hard to make a move this winter. When a talent-rich free-agent pool is available, when good young hitters who represent solid investments are all competing with each other, and when signing these guys don't mean giving up any talent in the minors.

Centerfield Dec 21 2015 03:21 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

d'Kong76 wrote: So I can come in off the ledge then for now? No dude. Stay out here with me. We got this great view of Edgy playing in traffic.

Frayed Knot Dec 21 2015 03:47 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

* Lots of players -- major, minor, and in-between -- are moved every single July; this coming season should be no different. There are just too many variables to make blanket statements about the state of the market 8 months in advance. * My comment about doing a mid-season trade not being harder this coming summer was merely in response to the assertion that it will be because now "other teams have seen that trick". There was nothing unique or ground-breaking about the Cespedes deal that's going to change the way teams think in the future about deadline deals in general or about deals with the Mets in particular. Which isn't to say that coming up with a Cespedes-type at the deadline will be easy, or that it will work out as well next time (it almost surely will NOT), or that you should go into your season planning to do that.

Centerfield Dec 21 2015 04:12 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Frayed Knot wrote: * Lots of players -- major, minor, and in-between -- are moved every single July; this coming season should be no different. There are just too many variables to make blanket statements about the state of the market 8 months in advance. I agree that there will be many trades. I am explaining why I think that it will be more difficult this year. I think there is a good chance there will be a tighter market, and I cited to the weak free agent class as a reason why. Is it determinative? No, but I think it will be a factor. But agreed that there will be a ton of variables, including injuries and the first-half success of several teams. Frayed Knot wrote: * My comment about doing a mid-season trade not being harder this coming summer was merely in response to the assertion that it will be because now "other teams have seen that trick". There was nothing unique or ground-breaking about the Cespedes deal that's going to change the way teams think in the future about deadline deals in general or about deals with the Mets in particular. Which isn't to say that coming up with a Cespedes-type at the deadline will be easy, or that it will work out as well next time (it almost surely will NOT), or that you should go into your season planning to do that. Agreed on all points here.

bmfc1 Dec 21 2015 06:55 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

CF explains my point better than I did about it possibly being tougher to pull off the same trick. I wonder if other teams are planning on using that model (stay close, make a big strike at the deadline and save a half-season of salary, which might account for the slow free agent action).

Frayed Knot Dec 21 2015 09:35 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I wonder if other teams are planning on using that model (stay close, make a big strike at the deadline and save a half-season of salary, which might account for the slow free agent action). I don't think anyone really goes into the season with that 'model' in mind. Ideally you only decide on that after you find yourselves in a situation such as the Mets did last year: in mid-July with a clearly defined spot that needs an upgrade (the worst offense in MLB) and yet keeping their heads above .500 and within striking distance of the division thanks to some monumental underachieving by the Natinals. That's when you make a decision to spend prospects in order to 'go for it'. In this case it worked flawlessly when Cespedes going ape on ML pitchers synched-up with the return/call-up/rebirth of Wright/d'Arnaud/Conforto/Granderson & co. and, in a blink, the worst became best. But we've also seen times where those kinds of moves have been ill-timed and backfired (cough ... Kazmir ... cough) and, even this past year, had Sandy gone through with his first choice of the Carlos Gomez deal I think it's safe to say that things wouldn't have worked out nearly as well. To sum up with my original point: what I think they're doing this winter by skipping over the 'star' market in favor of trying to plug the holes in the 'back end' of the roster* is to hopefully not find themselves in a situation where they're DFL in runs scored again if/when they get hit by injuries or under-achievements and feel they have to throw the trading-deadline hail-Mary again. * and, again, I'm putting aside for purposes of this discussion whether you're in the camp that thinks the team can't spend or simply won't spend as the result is the same no matter what the cause

Centerfield Dec 21 2015 10:26 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Frayed Knot wrote: I don't think anyone really goes into the season with that 'model' in mind....In this case it worked flawlessly when Cespedes going ape on ML pitchers synched-up with the return/call-up/rebirth of Wright/d'Arnaud/Conforto/Granderson & co. and, in a blink, the worst became best. But we've also seen times where those kinds of moves have been ill-timed and backfired (cough ... Kazmir ... cough) and, even this past year, had Sandy gone through with his first choice of the Carlos Gomez deal I think it's safe to say that things wouldn't have worked out nearly as well. Exactly. Build your team in the winter, when you have more options and it doesn't necessarily cost you prospects.

bmfc1 Dec 21 2015 10:42 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

There might be a new model. Things change year to year.

Centerfield Dec 21 2015 11:22 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

and, again, I'm putting aside for purposes of this discussion whether you're in the camp that thinks the team can't spend or simply won't spend as the result is the same no matter what the cause For clarification: 1. I don't know if it's "can't" or "won't" spend more. Either way the Wilpons suck. They're either cheap and won't spend, or they're incompetent and can't figure out how to fund a large payroll despite playing in NY. 2. They definitely can (or at least, could have) reallocated assets in order to afford a star outfielder this year even with the current payroll. (They spent $20 million plus on Cabrera/Colon/Blevins already. If they had gone Herrera over Walker, that would be another $10 million. And it's rumored that they have another $10 million to spend) Now, there may well be a restriction on long-term contracts imposed by a lender. Have no way of knowing this. 3. I do not buy even for a second that keeping payroll down this year will have any effect on the ability to sign the four aces to long term deals years down the road.

Frayed Knot Dec 22 2015 12:00 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: They definitely can (or at least, could have) reallocated assets in order to afford a star outfielder this year even with the current payroll. (They spent $20 million plus on Cabrera/Colon/Blevins already. If they had gone Herrera over Walker, that would be another $10 million. And it's rumored that they have another $10 million to spend) OK, but again, my point is that they are viewing the lack of adequate second options as a large reason why the 2015 offense was such a mess in the first place, particularly once Wright & d'Arnaud went down. So what they've chosen to do going into the coming year is bank on the idea that upgrades such as Colon over Verrett, Walker over Herrera, Blevins over Leathersich, Flores/Tejada as platoon/backups rather than starters and other such depth-strengthening moves collectively add up to a better strategy than would whatever upgrade they'd get by putting all their eggs into the basket of the one BIG CATCH. Disagree with that direction if you want, but I think that's the argument they'd give you if pressed on why they chose not to spend the majority of their allowance on one sexy move.

Centerfield Dec 22 2015 05:52 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I understand what you are saying, and I understand the Mets' aims here. And I agree that this is the justification you would get from the Mets. You have absolutely nailed what the Mets are doing. But that being said, let's be honest about what the Mets are looking to do here. The second half Mets had pretty good second options. They had Johnson, Uribe, Cuddyer, Lagares and Plawecki. They had a 2 headed shortstop, one could hit, one could field. They had 6 starting pitchers, and a good bullpen (at least from the right side). And on top of all these great second options, they also had Yoenis Cespedes. A legitimate cleanup hitter. The second half Mets were a great team. Why? Because they had all those good second options and a monster in the middle of their lineup. And that great team won the division and went to the World Series with a legitimate shot to win. So when the Mets say we are going to arm the 2016 team with better second options, but no cleanup hitter, they are making their goals clear. They are trying to be better than the disastrous first half Mets. They are not looking to improve upon the NL Champion second-half Mets. In fact, they're more or less resigned to the fact that they won't be as good. They're trying to build a "pretty good" team. "Great" is not realistically on their radar. "Great" is only possible by accident. They've traded in their chance at "great" in exchange for "financial flexibility". The Cubs took their great team, and set their goals even higher. They improved the team that left the field in October. They were like, you know what? We need another pitcher to add to Arrieta/Lester. And got him. And then they looked at their already loaded lineup and said, you know what, let's get Zobrist anyway. He's a really good hitter. And then they sat back and said, hey you know what is even better than adding one good hitter? Two good hitters! Let's get the best position player available on the market EVEN THOUGH WE ALREADY HAVE A MONSTROUS LINEUP. They watched the Mets celebrate on their field and have taken every measure to prevent that from happening again. The Mets? They looked at that great team that left everything on the field in October and said "Wow, what a great team. Maybe we can get away with less." They looked at that roster and said "Let's choose one out of the two things that made us great. What was more important? The great hitter? Or the better second options? Let's go with better second options." Status quo would be to bring back great second options and a great hitter. But that's not on the menu. Improvement? Improvement would mean great second options and two great hitters. But we've been so conditioned to think improvement is far-fetched, that when I type that, the idea seems downright laughable. Think about this for a second. When I talk about improving the team, the idea is laughable. So they're getting us better second options. Fine. Whatever. We'll be better than the first half Mets. Probably not as good as the second half Mets. YOUR 2016 METS! BETTER THAN WE WERE WHEN WE SUCKED! FK says: "Disagree with that direction if you want". I do disagree. Because the direction is down. We could have gone up, we could have stayed the same, but we are instead, choosing to go down. But you know what? It's ok. Because our division sucks. And so even if we take a step back, we should still be favorites to win depending on what else Washington does this winter. And if we can make the post-season, who knows, maybe we beat the Cubs anyway. Or maybe the Cubs don't even make it. It's baseball. Anything can happen. No way that '88 team should have lost to the Dodgers. We have always suspected that ownership's goal was to field a team just good enough to compete for the playoffs. Never has that been more apparent than it is now.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 22 2015 08:21 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

They're trying to build a "pretty good" team. "Great" is not realistically on their radar. "Great" is only possible by accident. They've traded in their chance at "great" in exchange for "financial flexibility". I think that what the Mets are trying to do, in a nutshell, is to assemble the best team that they can with an embarrassingly meager, especially for New York, budget. While bullshitting everyone, still, that they have no economic constraints. As if Ben Zobrist is the cure-all for every single baseball problem that could possibly ail a team. The New York Mets Operate Like A Ponzi Scheme Mets ownership is taking team revenue and sending it to their creditors By Howard Megdal on Dec 21, 2015 at 5:06 PM It’s hard to overstate the opportunity the New York Mets currently enjoy. It’s no less hard to overstate the absurdity of how little they are doing to capitalize on it. The Mets own the rights to the finest young stable of starting pitchers in baseball. Further, thanks to the strange economics of baseball—under which a player earns little more than the league minimum for his first three years and then enters a controlled arbitration process that limits raises for three years after that—the Mets’ quartet of great young hurlers will never be less expensive than they are now. The four—Matt Harvey, Jacob deGrom, Noah Syndergaard and Steven Matz, plus homegrown closer Jeurys Familia—will make around $9.5 million next year. Considering how much it costs to buy pitching on the free agent market—the San Francisco Giants, for example, have a starting five that will cost $70,616,666 next season—this theoretically frees up the Mets to leverage their young, cost-controlled pitching with enough offense to dominate baseball for the foreseeable future. But that’s not how this is going down. Because the New York Mets’ owners, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, are drowning in debt. Back in 2008, the team’s investments with Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff were discovered to be a fraud. More than $500 million in assets Wilpon and Katz thought they had—and had borrowed against—vanished. Accordingly, just to stay afloat, they needed to take out a $430 million loan against the team and $450 million against their majority ownership stake in SNY (a network started with a loan from Madoff, incidentally). Ever since, the Mets have managed to get by annually by diverting revenue from their baseball and television operation into the financing of debt. Prior to the refinancing of the past two years, the annual interest on these two loans plus debt balloon payments of more than $43 million have exceeded team payroll itself. The refinancing of the two loans has extended their due dates out five years, so this arrangement is set to continue for a long time to come. And the debt balloon payments run until December 2045, when currently youthful pitching ace Steven Matz will be 54 years old. You can add in the settlement of the lawsuit brought by the trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims, Irving Picard. He sued Mets ownership, asserting they “knew or should have known” Madoff was a fraud. Ultimately, he settled with them once he determined that even if he won, Wilpon and Katz didn’t have the money to pay him. The settlement calls for payments in 2016 and 2017 that as of now come out to about $30 million each year. That such an arrangement is not in the best interests of baseball cannot be debated. Fred Wilpon, in what was his most recent press conference back in February 2013, happily acknowledged having diverted revenue toward both corporate and family debt. This is precisely what led MLB to strip Dodgers’ ownership from Frank McCourt, but then-Commissioner Bud Selig instead empowered Wilpon and even provided an MLB loan. Selig then looked the other way when Wilpon didn’t pay it back on time. Selig’s successor, Rob Manfred, has so far been unwilling to do anything about the arrangement either, noting recently that MLB teams ought to spend commensurate with their marketplace, but calling the fact that the Kansas City Royals have a higher payroll than the Mets a “fun fact.” Kansas City has a population one-fifteenth the size of New York City’s. Meanwhile, the very best offensive free agents on the market, like Jason Heyward, are headed elsewhere. Yoenis Cespedes, the team’s best offensive player during their magical late-season run to the World Series, has been described as too expensive by team officials. Second baseman Daniel Murphy, the team’s best hitter in the postseason, has also been deemed too expensive. Instead, the Mets filled their hole at second base by trading Jon Niese, who provided pitching depth, for Neil Walker. That deal allowed the Mets to add a second baseman at revenue-neutral prices. This off-season as a whole is a refutation of the public line by Wilpon and other senior officials that, should more revenue come to the Mets, they’d pass it on to consumers in the form of raising payroll. Per Forbes revenue estimates, the Mets were 27th out of 30 MLB teams in percentage of revenue spent on payroll last season. That was before the 2015 World Series run. And yet, while estimates of their postseason revenue alone range from $45-60 million and attendance increased by 19.6 percent, along with ratings on SNY having reached rough parity with the Yankees (meaning the network can charge more for advertising) there’s no sign that virtually any of this money is going back into the team. As of now, the team’s free agent moves—re-signing Jerry Blevins and Bartolo Colon to one-year deals, and adding Asdrubal Cabrera on a two-year deal—are largely paid for in 2016 payroll by the unexpected retirement of Michael Cuddyer. There’s no one to answer for this. Jeff Wilpon, team COO, hasn’t made himself available to a reporter since he was sued for sexually harassing a pregnant employee, Leigh Castergine, even though the suit has since been settled. Fred doesn’t talk on the record, either. The general manager, Sandy Alderson, is undergoing treatment for cancer. And the acting public face of the Mets, John Ricco, “doesn’t even know what the payroll is,” as one reporter familiar with the team put it. So the Mets have been blessed with a once in a generation baseball opportunity while being cursed by the ownership of Wilpon and Katz, multiple-time victims of Ponzi schemes. Given how the team’s finances currently work, it appears they’re now running a Ponzi scheme of their own. http://www.vocativ.com/news/262818/the- ... zi-scheme/

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 22 2015 01:32 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Come on. JUST like McCourt? That's ridiculous. I mean, McCourt cursed more, and had a crazy wife. And weather! Nicer weather. And a different time zone and stuff.

Frayed Knot Dec 22 2015 02:19 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: They're trying to build a "pretty good" team. "Great" is not realistically on their radar. "Great" is only possible by accident. They've traded in their chance at "great" in exchange for "financial flexibility". We have always suspected that ownership's goal was to field a team just good enough to compete for the playoffs. Never has that been more apparent than it is now. Well I think we can all agree that it would be just terrific if they had the clout to fix/upgrade ALL the holes at once; to improve the roster at the backend AND sign top-notch FAs at the front end all while knowing that none of that will have any effect on the future of the young pitchers as they start to move into more expensive arb/FA years. But we also know that that's not realistic at this time so, for right now anyway, they're opting to go for the multiple but smaller upgrades at several spots route rather than risk it all for the potentially bigger prize sitting behind Door #2

Centerfield Dec 22 2015 02:49 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Frayed Knot wrote: But we also know that that's not realistic at this time Well, that's really the key here. I guess a bunch of you guys knew. And you've had time to come to grips with this reality. I didn't know. I believed them when they said they were going to spend money. I believed in their plan to rebuild and open up the books. I thought it was a dick move for Wilpon to demand fans show up before he increased payroll, but now that it happened, I thought he had no choice. And it's basically just this last month where I've come to realize that the Mets are not going to go for it. They'll probably never go for it. "Just good enough" is basically all they are interested in being. So call me stupid, or naive, whatever. I guess I've learned my lesson.* *Just to be clear, I'm not implying that you are calling me stupid or naive. Sorry if it came across that way. I should clarify that my tone is such in these posts because I'm aggravated at the Mets, not anyone here.

Ceetar Dec 22 2015 03:11 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I don't understand the teeth gnashing over Heyward. Half his value is run-prevention and it's very clear that run-creation is the Mets need.

Frayed Knot Dec 22 2015 03:32 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: But we also know that that's not realistic at this time Well, that's really the key here. I guess a bunch of you guys knew. And you've had time to come to grips with this reality. Well I don't claim to KNOW anything; it's why I tend to stay away from the threads where folks construct their dream team based on a specific budget number that's nothing more than a figure they pull out of the air, and why I said that you're free to choose whether you think it's a case of the team being unable to spend a particular amount or unwilling to because no one here, least of all me, knows what the "correct" amount is. But I think it's safe to say that based on the payrolls over the last few years combined with what we know about Madoff, about the loans to cover those losses, about the lawsuit to recover even some of the gains they made with Madoff, about the debt taken on to finance the stadium just as the recession was blowing in and shooting the hell out of the windfall they were expecting, and maybe even going back to the money they spent buying out Doubleday & Cablevision (while thinking they had a bigger cushion to fall back on), that they're not currently able to spend at or anywhere near the top of the league. Add all that up and I think it's pretty clear that they weren't going to go after top FA stars this winter AND plug other holes at the same time with the smaller six & eight & 10 million dollar moves. You obviously wanted them to go with choice A over B but they went the other way. Would I prefer them to do both? Sure Are they going to be able to in the future? Maybe Are they able right now to spend at least some more but are holding back for what they think is the right opportunity? I have no idea.

Centerfield Dec 22 2015 04:39 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Frayed Knot wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: But we also know that that's not realistic at this time Well, that's really the key here. I guess a bunch of you guys knew. And you've had time to come to grips with this reality. Well I don't claim to KNOW anything; it's why I tend to stay away from the threads where folks construct their dream team based on a specific budget number that's nothing more than a figure they pull out of the air, and why I said that you're free to choose whether you think it's a case of the team being unable to spend a particular amount or unwilling to because no one here, least of all me, knows what the "correct" amount is. But I think it's safe to say that based on the payrolls over the last few years combined with what we know about Madoff, about the loans to cover those losses, about the lawsuit to recover even some of the gains they made with Madoff, about the debt taken on to finance the stadium just as the recession was blowing in and shooting the hell out of the windfall they were expecting, and maybe even going back to the money they spent buying out Doubleday & Cablevision (while thinking they had a bigger cushion to fall back on), that they're not currently able to spend at or anywhere near the top of the league. Add all that up and I think it's pretty clear that they weren't going to go after top FA stars this winter AND plug other holes at the same time with the smaller six & eight & 10 million dollar moves. You obviously wanted them to go with choice A over B but they went the other way. Would I prefer them to do both? Sure Are they going to be able to in the future? Maybe Are they able right now to spend at least some more but are holding back for what they think is the right opportunity? I have no idea. I get all that. I thought that with revenue increasing around baseball in general and the post-season revenue, there would definitely be an increase in spending. Plus, I thought that the payroll was artificially low during the rebuild, but once the pitchers and Conforto arrived, they had the ability/willingness to open up and spend. So from your post, am I correct in concluding that you are in the "Using Mets money to finance their personal debt" camp?

Centerfield Dec 22 2015 04:50 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Ceetar wrote: I don't understand the teeth gnashing over Heyward. Half his value is run-prevention and it's very clear that run-creation is the Mets need. I wanted Heyward because he would have represented nearly a 150 point improvement in OPS over the incumbent, Juan Lagares. This improvement would have offset the approximately 300 points we lost from Beast-Mode Cespedes to Lagares. No other improvement comes close to that.

Ceetar Dec 22 2015 04:53 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: I don't understand the teeth gnashing over Heyward. Half his value is run-prevention and it's very clear that run-creation is the Mets need. I wanted Heyward because he would have represented nearly a 150 point improvement in OPS over the incumbent, Juan Lagares. This improvement would have offset the approximately 300 points we lost from Beast-Mode Cespedes to Lagares. No other improvement comes close to that. Well, Zobrist, Upton. Improvement from Conforto and Lagares.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 22 2015 05:12 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Where do you play Upton, Cee?

Ceetar Dec 22 2015 05:18 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Where do you play Upton, Cee? left and let Conforto get some more seasoning? or push Granderson to center on occasion? I mean, there are 2+ outfield positions. You find room for the guys that mash. If a talented prospect gets blocked, that's the breaks.

Frayed Knot Dec 22 2015 05:34 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 23 2015 03:07 AM

So from your post, am I correct in concluding that you are in the "Using Mets money to finance their personal debt" camp? Not having the slightest clue about the condition of their personal finances, about those of the team, or about laws and guidelines (both USA & MLB) which govern what is or isn't permissible involving cases like this, I have no freakin' idea about what happens with 'Mets money'. I did read a small note in October estimating that post-season income would, for the first time in years, push the team's bottom line for 2015 a 'small amount' into the black. Not much to go on considering that info was neither confirmed nor specific, but assuming the "first time in years" part is correct then they couldn't be using NYM profits to shore up their personal woes because there haven't been any profits - something which, given loan paybacks, stadium debt, et al, may well be true. Of course then you get into whether maybe team profits are being hidden in the SNY part of the equation (not unheard of in the sports accounting world) but now we're even further in total guesswork. Bottom Line: Damned if I know.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 22 2015 06:14 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 22 2015 06:17 PM

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Come on. JUST like McCourt? That's ridiculous. I mean, McCourt cursed more, and had a crazy wife. And weather! Nicer weather. And a different time zone and stuff. lol. I don't necessarily have a problem with that because it's all Wilpon and Katz money anyways, and they can do whatever they want with their money. It's theirs, and the Mets are a private company without any shareholders or publicly traded stock prices to concern themselves with. It's no different than any other business. That my favorite pizzeria had their best year ever money-wise doesn't give me the right to demand that the owner upgrade the lousy air-conditioning instead of splurging for a new Mercedes-Benz. All I can do is to stop eating at that pizzeria. My problem, though, is that MLB ousted McCourt for doing what the Mets owners are doing. Another reason why Wilpon seems to have hunkered down and dug in to maintain ownership of the Mets at all costs, besides the vanity and the psychic value that comes from owning a professional team, especially a jewel like the Mets, is that the owners' equity in the team, at least as a percentage of the value of the team, is low. They took out multi-hundred million dollar loans to pay back those non-Mets expenses and used the team as collateral or security for those loans. What the owners essentially did is to mortgage the Mets to pay back the Madoff incurred debt. The "mortgage" arrangement now links the Madoff related debt to the team. It means, I suppose, that if the owners ever do sell, the "mortgage" debt would get paid first as a condition of the loan, just like a home mortgage, and the owners wouldn't receive anywhere near the full value of whatever the team sells for -- just like a homeowner that sells a million dollar home with an outstanding $600K mortgage pockets no more than $400K from the sale of the home. Maybe, as Wilpon sees it, there's not enough profit in selling the Mets right now. That's the problem, as I see it. That MLB would let the owners use the Mets as security on such an enormous loan, especially when the underlying debt on the loan isn't baseball related.

Mets Willets Point Dec 22 2015 06:17 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I haven't read this whole thread, but have the Mets made an offer to Dick yet?

Ceetar Dec 22 2015 06:18 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Mets – Willets Point wrote: I haven't read this whole thread, but have the Mets made an offer to Dick yet? yeah, he'll be the bench coach.

Frayed Knot Dec 23 2015 03:41 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Just out of curiosity I went looking at what kind of off-season moves the 2014 Royals made after their 89-win / WS-losing season * 7 of their starting 9 position players returned. They swapped out Nori Aoki for Alex Rios in RF -- a move which essentially wound up as a net negative [710 OPS to 640] and at DH Billy Butler was swapped for Kendrys Morales -- a net positive at it turned out [702 OPS to 847] although that was hardly a given as Morales was coming off a lousy and partial 2014: 632 OPS in 200+ AB * On the pitching side: James Shields left as a FA and was replaced by Edinson Volquez which resulted in pretty much the status quo [14 wins, 3.21 ERA/1.18 WHiP vs 13, 3.55/1.31] They signed Chris Young as a 5th starter/swingman: a guy who had made a total of 60 starts total over the six seasons from 2008-2013 but gave them 18 starts + 16 relief apps with a 3.04 / 0.96 Signed Ryan Madson to replace Aaron Crow in the bullpen -- another move which worked out great [2.13 / 0.93] even though Madson hadn't thrown an official pitch since 2011 * Then at the trading deadline they added Zobrist & Cueto The 2015 squad wound up scoring 73 more runs in 2015 than in '14 (6th best in AL) while allowing 17 more (3rd best) and winning seven more games. In both seasons they played to five games better than their pythagorean projections.

86-Dreamer Dec 23 2015 03:42 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Ceetar wrote: Mets – Willets Point wrote: I haven't read this whole thread, but have the Mets made an offer to Dick yet? yeah, he'll be the bench coach. Touche. we got Dicked both on the bench and in CF

batmagadanleadoff Dec 23 2015 04:14 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Frayed Knot wrote: Just out of curiosity I went looking at what kind of off-season moves the 2014 Royals made after their 89-win / WS-losing season * 7 of their starting 9 position players returned. They swapped out Nori Aoki for Alex Rios in RF -- a move which essentially wound up as a net negative [710 OPS to 640] and at DH Billy Butler was swapped for Kendrys Morales -- a net positive at it turned out [702 OPS to 847] although that was hardly a given as Morales was coming off a lousy and partial 2014: 632 OPS in 200+ AB * On the pitching side: James Shields left as a FA and was replaced by Edinson Volquez which resulted in pretty much the status quo [14 wins, 3.21 ERA/1.18 WHiP vs 13, 3.55/1.31] They signed Chris Young as a 5th starter/swingman: a guy who had made a total of 60 starts total over the six seasons from 2008-2013 but gave them 18 starts + 16 relief apps with a 3.04 / 0.96 Signed Ryan Madson to replace Aaron Crow in the bullpen -- another move which worked out great [2.13 / 0.93] even though Madson hadn't thrown an official pitch since 2011 * Then at the trading deadline they added Zobrist & Cueto The 2015 squad wound up scoring 73 more runs in 2015 than in '14 (6th best in AL) while allowing 17 more (3rd best) and winning seven more games. In both seasons they played to five games better than their pythagorean projections. Even if this is all true --and I'm not saying it isn't, Kansas City shouldn't be the baseline or gauge by which to measure the Mets. That's because Kansas City is in Kansas City. Now if I was paying Kansas City rent or Kansas City mortgage, then maybe ....

Rockin' Doc Dec 23 2015 04:20 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Ceetar wrote: I don't understand the teeth gnashing over Heyward. Half his value is run-prevention and it's very clear that run-creation is the Mets need. Well, Heyward is an established Gold Glove, defensive ace in the outfield that has good speed on the base paths. He would have been the Mets best hitter (not named Cespedes) last season. His signing could have bolstered the Mets offense while solidifying the outfield defense. I can understand how a person may believe he is not worth the longterm, financial commitment that the Cubs extended to him in his recent free agent deal, but I can not fathom how someone fails to see how he would have significantly strengthened the Mets line up both offensively and defensively.

Edgy MD Dec 23 2015 04:23 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Rockin' Doc wrote: He would have been the Mets best hitter (not named Cespedes) last season. I'm Curtis Granderson. Damn glad to meet you.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 23 2015 04:27 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Ceetar wrote: I don't understand the teeth gnashing over Heyward. Half his value is run-prevention and it's very clear that run-creation is the Mets need. Is there a difference in value between a player that creates x runs of offense for his team over the course of a season and a player who prevents the opposition from scoring x runs over the course of a season? If the Mets were shutting out the opposition game in and game out, then I could definitely see your point. But I doubt that the Mets run prevention (pitching and defense combined) is at a level that would render Heyward's defense as superfluous.

Rockin' Doc Dec 23 2015 04:55 AM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Edgy MD wrote: Rockin' Doc wrote: He would have been the Mets best hitter (not named Cespedes) last season. I'm Curtis Granderson. Damn glad to meet you. Fair point. Granderson had a great season last year. I sincerely hope he can do the same next season.

Frayed Knot Dec 23 2015 01:31 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Even if this is all true --and I'm not saying it isn't, Kansas City shouldn't be the baseline or gauge by which to measure the Mets... Not suggesting that it is. The only point I sort of had (and, as I said, it was really just curiosity more than anything) was to show that teams can and do improve without big, gaudy, headline-stealing moves. Is there a difference in value between a player that creates x runs of offense for his team over the course of a season and a player who prevents the opposition from scoring x runs over the course of a season? If the Mets were shutting out the opposition game in and game out, then I could definitely see your point. But I doubt that the Mets run prevention (pitching and defense combined) is at a level that would render Heyward's defense as superfluous. Except in this case where the innings Heyward would be taking would be almost strictly Lagares's which would be more or less status quo as far as defense goes -- maybe even down somewhat as Heyward as racked up most of his rep as a RF. That in turn means that Heyward's 'value added', if you will, would be almost entirely on the offensive side where he's a nice, though hardly great, player. None of which is to knock Heyward* but it's why I said when he was first being talked about here that if we were to bring him in in would be instead of Lagares not to platoon with him as some were suggesting. Top level FAs don't come into situations where they platoon and ownership (least of all this one) don't pay top dollar for part-time players. * Fuckin' auto-correct keeps changing this to Hayward

Centerfield Dec 23 2015 02:56 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Kansas City: I don't think Kansas City lost as much as we did this year. As you cite, they lost two guys right around .700 in OPS. We lost our cleanup hitter and have not replaced that production. Plus, Kansas City right now has stretched their payroll as far as it can go. With their small market, they are traditionally near the bottom of the league. Recognizing their window, they pushed (albeit barely) into the top half last year. One slot ahead of the Mets. Sucks to play in a small market. But I don't think you can blame the owners. (At least not now anyway). Heyward: I don't remember anyone realistically suggesting that Heyward would come here to platoon with Lagares. If so, that is a silly idea. If Heyward were signed, he would play every day. Against RH pitchers, Heyward would play center and Granderson would play RF. Against lefties, Lagares would play CF, and Heyward would play RF. Lagares needs a platoon partner. So does Granderson. That is why Heyward fit so perfectly. The innings Heyward would have taken, would have been about 2/3 Lagares, 1/3 Granderson. So yes, there would be a defensive upgrade. And even if you are just looking at offense alone, Heyward represents a 150 point improvement in OPS over Lagares. Yeah, I'll take that.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 23 2015 03:51 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I'm not sure the top free agent on the market signs up for a situation where he's asked to play a different position every day, at least when weighing it against a counter offer to play just one. That was also an issue said to have impacted the Zobrist dealings. I think the only way for the Mets to have been a serious player for Heyward or Cespedes was to have also committed to trading one of their own outfielders, but none of the Heyward-blowers have advanced that theory. Also, CF, need you be reminded (again) that Conforto+dArnaud+ Wright on full seasons, not to mention a likely power upgrade at SS would indeed go a long way toward "replacing" the production of 1 player. Can you count on all that happening? Maybe not, but Shirley you must see there's been a conscious effort to spread the production around.

Vic Sage Dec 23 2015 04:20 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Also, CF, need you be reminded (again) that Conforto+dArnaud+ Wright on full seasons, not to mention a likely power upgrade at SS would indeed go a long way toward "replacing" the production of 1 player. Can you count on all that happening? Maybe not, but Shirley you must see there's been a conscious effort to spread the production around. Why do you think Wright and d'Arnaud will play full seasons? d'Arnaud has done it only once, at AA, and, probably because of that, they're looking to get him ABs at other positions (likely 1B, which would take ABs away from Duda). And Wright has played a full season in only 1 of his last 5 seasons. He's 33, with a serious and chronic back issue, and there is NO reason to think that, even with a full season, he'll be as productive as he needs to be to carry this offense. Conforto? He's 22 and, while he looked like the real deal last year, it was not a huge sample. He's given no indication that he can hit LHPs yet. I think he will, eventually, but counting on him as a full-time offensive force this early in his career may be premature. More power at SS? How? Flores hit as many HRs as Cabrera did, and he's likely to improve while Cabrera is in decline. I wouldn't trade Flores straight up for Cabrera... would you? So how is this an upgrade? And Walker/Murphy is a wash. Granderson? At 35, he's as likely to reproduce his 2014 season as he is the 2015 one. So, unless Lagares is prepared to give us Cespedes-like numbers, this is an offense that is more likely (or at least AS likely) to replicate the league-worst offense it put on the field until August, rather than the league-leading one they fielded thereafter. I would take the under, if i were a betting man. And replacing Nieuhenheis or Campbell with deAza is hardly the upgrade (if it is) that will make up the difference.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 23 2015 04:35 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Why do you think Wright and d'Arnaud will play full seasons? Geez. I said "maybe not."

Centerfield Dec 23 2015 04:42 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm not sure the top free agent on the market signs up for a situation where he's asked to play a different position every day, at least when weighing it against a counter offer to play just one. That was also an issue said to have impacted the Zobrist dealings. But never once mentioned during the Heyward negotiations. Moreover, it's not a different position every day. It's either RF or CF. The same two positions that are in play for the Cubs, depending on what they do the rest of the way. Heyward has said that the biggest factor behind his choice was the Cubs base of young players, and how he felt they were in a better position going forward than the Mets. You know, the Mets have a pretty good core too. Maybe he would have been enticed by four aces. We will never know. Because unlike the Cards and Nats, the Mets never even tried. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think the only way for the Mets to have been a serious player for Heyward or Cespedes was to have also committed to trading one of their own outfielders, but none of the Heyward-blowers have advanced that theory. Because not a single source has ever suggested that this was a factor. But if it were, I'd be down with trading Granderson. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Also, CF, need you be reminded (again) that Conforto+dArnaud+ Wright on full seasons, not to mention a likely power upgrade at SS would indeed go a long way toward "replacing" the production of 1 player. Can you count on all that happening? Maybe not, but Shirley you must see there's been a conscious effort to spread the production around. First off, what Vic said above. Secondly, Conforto, d'Arnaud and Wright were all healthy and contributing after August 1, along with Cespedes. My goal was to improve upon, or at least replicate, that production next year. And so contributions by a those three work to the break-even point. They are not improvements. I've said many times, the Mets should have been looking to improve upon the Second Half Mets. If your goal is, like the Mets, to disregard the Second Half Mets, and only aim to be better than the First Half Mets, then sure. Those three will help. But in doing so, you are conceding that you are ok with taking a step back from the team that left the field in October.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 23 2015 05:12 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: Moreover, it's not a different position every It's either RF or CF. The same two positions that are in play for the Cubs, depending on what they do the rest of the way. Either but not both, at least not primarily. That's why I'd argue to have made a serious play for him we'd have also had to move an outfielder, probably Granderson. I wouldn;t have had an issue with that necessarily, just pointing out that scenario to me seems more likely than getting a $200M player to play two positions. Also, CF, need you be reminded (again) that Conforto+dArnaud+ Wright on full seasons, not to mention a likely power upgrade at SS would indeed go a long way toward "replacing" the production of 1 player. Can you count on all that happening? Maybe not, but Shirley you must see there's been a conscious effort to spread the production around. First off, what Vic said above. Vic didn't appear to understand me. Secondly, Conforto, d'Arnaud and Wright were all healthy and contributing after August 1, along with Cespedes. My goal was to improve upon, or at least replicate, that production next year. And so contributions by a those three work to the break-even point. They are not improvements. I've said many times, the Mets should have been looking to improve upon the Second Half Mets. What I was responding to were your own words: We lost our cleanup hitter and have not replaced that production. Go back and change it now if you like.

Centerfield Dec 23 2015 05:39 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

No need to change it. This was our lineup: 1. Granderson 2. Wright 3. Murphy 4. Cespedes 5. Duda 6. d'Arnaud 7. Conforto 8. Flores 9. Pitcher It was a terrific lineup. Since then, we lost Murphy and replaced him with Walker. I consider that more or less a wash. Cespedes is gone too. But nothing has been done to offset this. We lost our cleanup hitter and have not replaced that production. Conforto, d'Arnaud and Wright, no matter how much they play, cannot offset that loss, as they are already in the lineup.

Frayed Knot Dec 23 2015 05:41 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I'm cross-posting here with Bucket and am repeating some stuff, but a couple of things here rather than just erasing it all: - the Cubs signed Heyward with the intention of playing him everyday in CF (they let Dexter Fowler walk) and top shelf FAs who have their choice of where to go tend generally to pick spots where their role is well-defined. - Nor were the Mets going to say to Granderson: 'Hey you were our best (full time) offensive player last year and so we're going to reward you by cutting out 1/3 of your playing time'. It's why I said, back when this topic first started, that if they were going to go after Heyward (or Upton) it was going to be as a replacement for one of their OFs not as an addition to the incumbents, and when you've got two OFs already in the midst of long-term deals plus one promising rookie that track is not always so easy. It's nice that you (CF) recognize that you're willing to deal Granderson but, as JCL says, that was definitely NOT the vibe during most of the Heyward discussions. - of course no one knows what we'll get out of Wright + d'Arnaud + Conforto but I think it would be safe to bet the 'Over' on the 565 combined ABs from 2015. Conservatively they'll double that; ideally come close to tripling it; and it would take several simultaneous disasters not to at least surpass it - yes they need to replace what they got from Cespedes but it's not like he was the full-season cleanup hitter - he was here for 1/3 of the season and was 10th on the team in ABs - as Billy/Brad Bean/Pitt said about losing Giambi: 'we can't replace him directly so we need to replace him in the aggregate' As always you are free to disagree with that strategy and/or exchange the word "can't" with "choose not to because we're parasitic vultures whose purpose is to rip you off while lining our pockets", but it's the road they're opting to take and I think folks need to at least accept that it is A strategy and that not every loss needs to be answered by a player who most closely resembles the guy being replaced.

Ceetar Dec 23 2015 06:06 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

and it's not just a matter of replacing the lineup at the end of 2015, because who knows how that'd do over the long term. You just want to score as many runs as possible. But don't forget the pitching. Obviously that's the crux of the team. But there's reason to hope for improvement there as well and prevent more runs. Obviously all pitchers are babied, but there's not reason not to expect Harvey, deGrom, and Thor to throw 30 more innings each, on the conservative side. That's 100 innings from them and 100 less for Dillon Gee, Carlos Torres, Robles, etc.

Centerfield Dec 23 2015 06:14 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I'm cross-posting here with Bucket and am repeating some stuff, but a couple of things here rather than just erasing it all: - the Cubs signed Heyward with the intention of playing him everyday in CF (they let Dexter Fowler walk) and top shelf FAs who have their choice of where to go tend generally to pick spots where their role is well-defined. - Nor were the Mets going to say to Granderson: 'Hey you were our best (full time) offensive player last year and so we're going to reward you by cutting out 1/3 of your playing time'. It's why I said, back when this topic first started, that if they were going to go after Heyward (or Upton) it was going to be as a replacement for one of their OFs not as an addition to the incumbents, and when you've got two OFs already in the midst of long-term deals plus one promising rookie that track is not always so easy. It's nice that you (CF) recognize that you're willing to deal Granderson but, as JCL says, that was definitely NOT the vibe during most of the Heyward discussions. - of course no one knows what we'll get out of Wright + d'Arnaud + Conforto but I think it would be safe to bet the 'Over' on the 565 combined ABs from 2015. Conservatively they'll double that; ideally come close to tripling it; and it would take several simultaneous disasters not to at least surpass it - yes they need to replace what they got from Cespedes but it's not like he was the full-season cleanup hitter - he was here for 1/3 of the season and was 10th on the team in ABs - as Billy/Brad Bean/Pitt said about losing Giambi: 'we can't replace him directly so we need to replace him in the aggregate' As always you are free to disagree with that strategy and/or exchange the word "can't" with "choose not to because we're parasitic vultures whose purpose is to rip you off while lining our pockets", but it's the road they're opting to take and I think folks need to at least accept that it is A strategy and that not every loss needs to be answered by a player who most closely resembles the guy being replaced. I get what you are saying. I think our discussion needs some clarification. In 2015, from Opening Day to the trade deadline, the Mets were last in offense. From the trade deadline on, they were first. Overall, they ended up 20th in the league in OPS. More production from Conforto, Wright and d'Arnaud, and all of the other additions this winter, will help move the Mets up from 20th overall. Probably to somewhere in the middle of the pack. I get this, and I do see how the "spread it around" moves, coupled with expected increases in production from these three will help accomplish that. But that's not what I wanted. If the second half team came back intact, they might not have stayed in first in offense over the course of a season. Would they have have been top 5? I think so. And so this Winter, I wanted the Mets to either improve upon this, or at least replicate it. Put out a top 5 offense. Maybe even the best offense. With a payroll commensurate with the market, this is a piece of cake. If they are stuck within current constraints, it's harder, but I felt, it was still possible. That's why I'm disappointed.

Edgy MD Dec 23 2015 06:20 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

It's probably best to not measure a team's offense against all of MLB, but only against the 15 teams in their league, as the DH advantage that the American League teams has leaves you, if not exactly comparing apples to oranges, perhaps comparing tangerines to clementines.

Centerfield Dec 23 2015 06:24 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Edgy MD wrote: It's probably best to not measure a team's offense against all of MLB, but only against the 15 teams in their league, as the DH advantage that the American League teams has leaves you, if not exactly comparing apples to oranges, perhaps comparing tangerines to clementines. Ok. Then it's still first and last, but then 9th out of 15 overall.

Ceetar Dec 23 2015 06:27 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: It's probably best to not measure a team's offense against all of MLB, but only against the 15 teams in their league, as the DH advantage that the American League teams has leaves you, if not exactly comparing apples to oranges, perhaps comparing tangerines to clementines. Ok. Then it's still first and last, but then 9th out of 15 overall. wait, what are you measuring? The Met scored the 7th most runs in the NL and 4th in wRC+. They were first in both in the second half, which includes some non-Cespedes time and some bad-Cespedes time.

Centerfield Dec 23 2015 07:10 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I'm measuring OPS. http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/sta ... order/true First in the NL Pre all star. Last post all-star. 9th overall. The all-star break as a delineation is admittedly not perfect, but you get the idea.

Ceetar Dec 23 2015 07:26 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Centerfield wrote: I'm measuring OPS. http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/sta ... order/true First in the NL Pre all star. Last post all-star. 9th overall. The all-star break as a delineation is admittedly not perfect, but you get the idea. straight OPS? you gotta park adjust at least.. It's harder to score in Citi Field. Mets were 4th in OPS+.

d'Kong76 Nov 03 2016 04:59 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

Was just re-reading parts of this so I thought I'd give it a bumper-roo...

TransMonk Nov 03 2016 05:27 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I'm sure Zobrist will live as a hero to Cubs fans for eternity, but as far as the Mets are concerned, I'm not sure he would have given us much more than what we got out of the 2B position in 2016. I'm still glad we didn't go long term on Zobrist. He will decline and and it may bite the Cubs in the ass...but hey, they got a ring, so what do I know.

d'Kong76 Nov 03 2016 05:35 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

I know, but there's some fun stuff in this thread... and now it's officially off-season.

Vic Sage Nov 03 2016 05:52 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

time for the angst to warm us and the mead to flow. Death to the wilponian infidel!

Centerfield Nov 03 2016 06:03 PM Re: Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

If there is any silver lining to the Cubs winning it all, maybe we can put to bed the idea that money doesn't help you win.