Master Index of Archived Threads


Winter Meeting Recap

Frayed Knot Dec 18 2015 01:06 PM

NYDN's Andy Martino posts a lengthy article about this past winter meeting in particular and about the general vibe of the tradition in general. Specifically here he deals with the temporarily in charge John Ricco, the Zobrist pursuit and the Walker/Cabrera aftermath. But he also goes back to dish on the Dickey dealings at the meetings three years back and on the whole pursuit/sharing of info and rumor that goes on at such things.

Edgy MD Dec 18 2015 01:15 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Makes clear that they were inquiring on Walker before Zobrist went to Chicago.

RealityChuck Dec 18 2015 01:41 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Edgy MD wrote: Makes clear that they were inquiring on Walker before Zobrist went to Chicago. As was reported at the time.

Edgy MD Dec 18 2015 02:15 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Indeed. But reinforcement helps.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2015 03:06 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

That's insightful, quality work from Tracky. Loved the Rosenthal confession. That gigantic Opryland hotel is the same place where I chaperoned Lunchpail's chess team for the national tournament last spring. His butt may hay have shared a seat with Mike Puma's butt.

Centerfield Dec 18 2015 04:00 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Makes clear that they were inquiring on Walker before Zobrist went to Chicago. As was reported at the time. Sure. Were they inquiring? Yes. But was there a substantive effort to acquire him before Zobrist? I don't know. I would guess no. And I realize it's possible we read different papers, but at the time, the widely reported story on the local rags, SNY and twitter was that the Mets had no real plan B. All the beat guys were on the same page with this. Martino himself said as much on the SNY segment that night. That feeling is also reflected in his article: A few minutes later, most of the Mets’ front office staff has returned to the suite. A “what now?” vibe settles over them. “Hey,” says Ricciardi, a streetwise former infielder with a thick Massachusetts accent. “Let’s just get some dinner.” When asked that night, Martino did not mention Walker. Because as of that evening, Walker was not realistically on their radar. The Walker situation, according to Martino was: In recent weeks, in laying groundwork for possible alternatives to Zobrist, the Mets had engaged the Pittsburgh Pirates on second baseman Neil Walker, but never felt close to a deal....Early in the meetings, Walker’s name was on the whiteboard, and the team brainstormed possible packages of prospects to offer the Pirates. Mets scout Roy Smith, who once worked for Pittsburgh and remains well-connected there, helped with the preliminary talks, but nothing seemed to fit. I don't think we'll ever know how aggressively the Mets pursued Walker, or if the Pirates demands were sky high leading up to the Winter Meetings, but it's clear that as the meetings started, Walker was just a name on a whiteboard, and the Mets were brainstorming possibilities. In other words, they were about as far along as we get here on the CPF. Meanwhile, the week before, they were playing real estate agent for Zobrist and his wife. But then the next morning, everything changed: Mid-morning on Wednesday, Ricco is on a conference call on his cell, when Pirates general manager Neal Huntington calls. It goes to voicemail, then Ricciardi’s phone rings. It’s Huntington. “Would you consider Walker for Niese?” Huntington asks Ricciardi, referring to Jonathon Niese, a 29-year-old lefthanded pitcher. Niese? Of course you take that. Did the Pirates demands drop? Was the possibility of Niese never raised by the Mets? Did they ever ask the Pirates, hey, what would you guys want for Walker? We don't know. But we do know that the Walker deal materialized the next day. In fact, it more or less fell into their laps. This is a much different scenario than: "We've got an offer out to Zobrist, but if he walks, we've got Huntington lined up ready to fire off the Walker trade." In the aftermath of the Zobrist/Walker situation, I wrote this: The Pirates made Neil Walker available weeks ago. If he could be had for Jon Neise, why wasn't this option #1? And why wasn't this not even on the table during the Zobrist courtship? If nothing else, at least the Mets could have saved themselves the embarrassment of not having a Plan B after Zobrist fell through. The answer might be: (a) The Mets tried. Before the Winter Meetings, they wanted Harvey. Or a package of prospects that included Dominic Smith and Dilson Herrera. After Zobrist went to the Cubs, they dropped their price to Niese. But I don't think this is likely. Why would Pittsburgh drop their price after we whiff on Zobrist? Which is why my guess is that this is what actually happened: (b) The Mets knew Walker was available, but everyone knew that they were big on Zobrist. Conceptual talks were had. They did not pan out. Neither side really pursued it. The Mets missed out on Zobrist. Huntington said "You know, I wonder if they know that all we want back is Niese." Made the call. Deal happened fast. I think it is far more likely that the Mets did not actively pursue Walker, because they didn't really want him. I think it's likely that the Pirates knew that the Mets were not interested, and therefore made no effort to engage them. And only after the Mets were spurned, did the Pirates make the first move.

Ceetar Dec 18 2015 04:12 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

that's all just semantics. To say the Mets "didn't have a plan B" is absurd. Walker was clearly on their whiteboard, which is far and above "discussions at the CPF". It's a list of guys they could potentially acquire to play for the Mets. They missed out on the top guy, went after another. How is that anything other than plan B? Because they didn't specifically rank them before hand? Of course the Pirates called. I bet they called the Nats and anyone else rumored to be in on Zobrist and looking for a 2B in general. You don't just drop the Mets a line cold and have the deal materialize like that. They had to know the Mets were willing to trade for Walker.

Centerfield Dec 18 2015 04:16 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

And just to refresh your recollection, this is what you wrote: RealityChuck wrote: The people who said is was Zobrist or nothing were just plain wrong. Before Zobrist turned them down, there were reports that the Mets were interested in Walker. December 7: http://www.amazinavenue.com/2015/12/7/9 ... er-pirates So the claim that there was no plan are just ignoring the evidence. The Mets most likely told the Pirates, "we'll trade Niese for Walker if we don't get Zobrist." The rapidity in which they made the deal shows they had laid the groundwork prior to Zobrist's decision. Oh, and Cabrera has the same agent as Zobrist. Wanna bet that signing wasn't discussed, too? It's funny that you read that Martino article and somehow think this vindicates your hypothesis, when in fact, it unequivocally shoots it down.

Centerfield Dec 18 2015 04:31 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

that's all just semantics. To say the Mets "didn't have a plan B" is absurd. Walker was clearly on their whiteboard, which is far and above "discussions at the CPF". It's a list of guys they could potentially acquire to play for the Mets. They missed out on the top guy, went after another. How is that anything other than plan B? Because they didn't specifically rank them before hand? Of course the Pirates called. I bet they called the Nats and anyone else rumored to be in on Zobrist and looking for a 2B in general. You don't just drop the Mets a line cold and have the deal materialize like that. They had to know the Mets were willing to trade for Walker. I like how you pretend that this segment does not exist: A few minutes later, most of the Mets’ front office staff has returned to the suite. A “what now?” vibe settles over them. “Hey,” says Ricciardi, a streetwise former infielder with a thick Massachusetts accent. “Let’s just get some dinner.” You're right. The Mets had a solid Plan B. It read: 1. Look dejectedly at each other. 2. Go eat something. He was on their whiteboard? They were brainstorming ideas? Come on. This is all stuff we do here. Don't make me send you a picture of my whiteboard.

Ceetar Dec 18 2015 04:36 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

that's all just semantics. To say the Mets "didn't have a plan B" is absurd. Walker was clearly on their whiteboard, which is far and above "discussions at the CPF". It's a list of guys they could potentially acquire to play for the Mets. They missed out on the top guy, went after another. How is that anything other than plan B? Because they didn't specifically rank them before hand? Of course the Pirates called. I bet they called the Nats and anyone else rumored to be in on Zobrist and looking for a 2B in general. You don't just drop the Mets a line cold and have the deal materialize like that. They had to know the Mets were willing to trade for Walker. I like how you pretend that this segment does not exist: A few minutes later, most of the Mets’ front office staff has returned to the suite. A “what now?” vibe settles over them. “Hey,” says Ricciardi, a streetwise former infielder with a thick Massachusetts accent. “Let’s just get some dinner.” You're right. The Mets had a solid Plan B. It read: 1. Look dejectedly at each other. 2. Go eat something. He was on their whiteboard? They were brainstorming ideas? Come on. This is all stuff we do here. Don't make me send you a picture of my whiteboard. No. if we put it on our whiteboard it's because we think they should put it on theirs. if they've done that, it's much farther along. and Martino reading a 'vibe' in the suite is not fact. Their plan B was "Get a different player sometime before April that we think is good." Their were a lot of factors to go into which guy. contract price, asking price in trade, negotiation of no-trade clauses if one exists, to move guys up and down in terms of priority. Maybe Walker was plan C if they demanded more than Niese. I don't get why there's this hangup with the flow chart. Whether or not the Mets knew exactly who they were going to try to acquire next for exactly how much is sorta irrelevant to the picture. It's not like plan B was "don't get a 2B". They were going to play the market and figure it out. It's not like Sandy had never loaded Walker's fangraphs page before the next morning.

Centerfield Dec 18 2015 04:48 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Ceetar wrote: Their plan B was "Get a different player sometime before April that we think is good." Oh. Well in that case, I take it back. Clearly they had done a ton of fucking work. In fact, I found their list of rejected plan B's: [crossout]Get a different player sometime before April that we think is bad. Get a different player sometime before 2018. Get the same player. Should we just get Murphy?[/crossout]

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 18 2015 05:07 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

I don't even understand what you guys are arguing about. Tracky's theme of "striving" seems to be the best explanation for that and all deals. The Mets preferred Zobrist so went hard after him; when they lost out they made the best of it and got Walker + Cabrera. They had to be delicate wrt pursuit of Walker while Zobrist was still in play. If we wanna speculate on stuff, I think maybe we can ask whether we'd have brought home Cabrera had we won Zobrist. I think maybe not?

Centerfield Dec 18 2015 05:20 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Cliff's Notes Version: CF: Love the Walker trade. Why wouldn't they make this Plan A, or at least pursue at the same time? Chuck: You are ignoring evidence. Of course the Walker/Niese deal was in place all along. Look how fast it happened. Martino: The Walker trade was proposed by Pittsburgh in mid-morning the day after, and was done by 2 p.m. Chuck: See? Told you.

Edgy MD Dec 18 2015 06:54 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Tracksuit wrote: In recent weeks, in laying groundwork for possible alternatives to Zobrist, the Mets had engaged the Pittsburgh Pirates on second baseman Neil Walker, but never felt close to a deal. Don't need no Cliff's Notes.

Centerfield Dec 18 2015 07:29 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

I quoted the same passage. Not seeing your intent here. Cliff's Notes were for JCL.

Edgy MD Dec 18 2015 07:37 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Of course you do. There's no ambiguity whatsoever.

Centerfield Dec 18 2015 07:54 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

I guess my point is not clear. After the Zobrist/Walker trade, I said: The Pirates made Neil Walker available weeks ago. If he could be had for Jon Neise, why wasn't this option #1? And why wasn't this not even on the table during the Zobrist courtship? If nothing else, at least the Mets could have saved themselves the embarrassment of not having a Plan B after Zobrist fell through. We now know the answer to the first question. Walker for Niese was not option 1 because no one knew this trade could be made until the day after Zobrist signed with the Cubs. As to the second question, "why was this not even on the table during the Zobrist courtship?", we are still not sure. We know that initial overtures were made, and we know that he was on the whiteboard. But we don't know why no one on the Mets knew he could be had for Niese. As I said above, it could be because Pittsburgh dropped their price. In which case I have no problem with what the Mets did. But I don't think this is likely. I think it is because they never really aggressively pursued this option. In which case, I do have a problem with what they did, and my implied criticism remains. When making a determination as to how to fill the whole at second base, I think a club should fully research all available options, and then make a decision. If they did not know that they could get Walker for only Niese when they made a four year offer to Zobrist, I view this as a failure in judgement. As I've said many times here, there is a difference between making the right decision through sound judgment, and happening to fall into the right decision by luck. To answer this question, there have been two theories suggested. JCL says the Mets might have had to be delicate with Walker while pursuing Zobrist. I have never heard of this before. I don't know why a club cannot pursue two viable options independently, and I don't know why they have to be sensitive about this, other than the general principle that a club should not broadcast anything they are doing anyway. But at least it's a theory, and I can't say this is not true. We can, without a doubt, dismiss Chuck's hypothesis: RealityChuck wrote: The people who said is was Zobrist or nothing were just plain wrong. Before Zobrist turned them down, there were reports that the Mets were interested in Walker....So the claim that there was no plan are just ignoring the evidence. The Mets most likely told the Pirates, "we'll trade Niese for Walker if we don't get Zobrist." The rapidity in which they made the deal shows they had laid the groundwork prior to Zobrist's decision. There is no question that this deal was not sitting as a backup during the Zobrist talks. I admit feeling irritation that there is an "I told you so" post here, when the text of the article clearly proves just the opposite.

Ceetar Dec 18 2015 08:00 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Zobrist is better That's why Walker wasn't option 1. Whether or not the official offer was 'on the table' during the negotiations doesn't really mean anything. They had a billion plan Bs, but it's not like the Pirates were just sitting around waiting for the Mets to get or not get Zobrist. The Pirates saw a trade partner open up and stepped up the talks. It's unlikely this would've been done in mere hours if it wasn't already discussed to some extent.

d'Kong76 Dec 18 2015 08:03 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Can we go back to this, it made me laugh out loud... Centerfield wrote: You're right. The Mets had a solid Plan B. It read: 1. Look dejectedly at each other. 2. Go eat something.

Centerfield Dec 18 2015 08:11 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Zobrist is better That's why Walker wasn't option 1. Agreed. But it is foolish to compare the two players without having an idea of their relative costs. One is a four year commitment and lots of money. Another is a pitcher you don't really like anyway. Whether or not the official offer was 'on the table' during the negotiations doesn't really mean anything. I think it does. And that is the point I'm making. Explore all options, before making a decision. They had a billion plan Bs, but it's not like the Pirates were just sitting around waiting for the Mets to get or not get Zobrist. The Pirates saw a trade partner open up and stepped up the talks. It's unlikely this would've been done in mere hours if it wasn't already discussed to some extent. Take a look at the passage below: “Would you consider Walker for Niese?” Huntington asks Ricciardi, referring to Jonathon Niese, a 29-year-old lefthanded pitcher. Niese is solid but unspectacular, and has put off teammates by complaining about their defensive play. The decision to part with him is not difficult, Mets officials later admit privately...When Ricco ends his call, Ricciardi tells him about the offers. Ricco immediately likes it — veteran for veteran, no need to sacrifice a prospect. It makes sense, and the Mets decide to do it. A few minutes later, a team official who’d been away for a few hours returns to the suite and sees Walker’s name back on the whiteboard. “What’s that?” he says. “We’re getting him,” another official answers. Alderson gets on the phone from New York to close the deal with Huntington. By 2 p.m. the trade is done; the team announces it at 6:30. I don't think one can read that and reasonably conclude that the parameters of the deal had already been in place.

Centerfield Dec 18 2015 08:13 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

d'Kong76 wrote: Can we go back to this, it made me laugh out loud... You're right. The Mets had a solid Plan B. It read: 1. Look dejectedly at each other. 2. Go eat something. You laugh. At my office, that's our Plan A.

Ceetar Dec 18 2015 08:22 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Centerfield wrote: I don't think one can read that and reasonably conclude that the parameters of the deal had already been in place. Beyond the projecting his own opinions of Niese onto the Mets and pretending he was tapping their phones, if the team announced the deal by that evening it seems extremely unlikely that Walker was found, called, sent to a doctor for a physical, and received the results in that time frame. That suggests they'd already vetted him, or they didn't look at them at all. Also nowhere are the Mets embarrassed for not having this exact deal in place. Perhaps they were negotiating for Niese anyway, and hadn't settled on a return. When Zobrist falls through, Pirates see a good match in Walker and suggest it. This is a normal thing that could happen, still don't see what the problem is with how things went down.

d'Kong76 Dec 18 2015 08:44 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Centerfield wrote: You laugh. At my office, that's our Plan A. There's some commonality to it, that's why it's so funny.

Centerfield Dec 18 2015 09:11 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Of course you do. There's no ambiguity whatsoever. Is it? Ok. Then I call bullshit. Let's recap. In the aftermath of the Walker Trade: The Pirates made Neil Walker available weeks ago. If he could be had for Jon Neise, why wasn't this option #1? And why wasn't this not even on the table during the Zobrist courtship? If nothing else, at least the Mets could have saved themselves the embarrassment of not having a Plan B after Zobrist fell through. It's hard to refute that the Zobrist situation was misplayed. I'm glad that it didn't happen, so no complaints from me. But if they really wanted Zobrist, I think the way to do it is to talk to Pittsburgh first, get the Niese deal floated, then put the contract in front of Zobrist last week, and say you've got to sign now, or we're pushing the button on the Pittsburgh deal. You might have even gotten him for 3 years then. It certainly beats fellating him in public the way they did. I don't know that the Niese/Walker trade hadn't been on the table as an option before the Zobrist offer didn't bear fruit. Before Zobrist turned them down, there were reports that the Mets were interested in Walker....So the claim that there was no plan are just ignoring the evidence. The Mets most likely told the Pirates, "we'll trade Niese for Walker if we don't get Zobrist." The rapidity in which they made the deal shows they had laid the groundwork prior to Zobrist's decision. And then later... Martino's Article Comes out: A few minutes later, most of the Mets’ front office staff has returned to the suite. A “what now?” vibe settles over them. “Hey,” says Ricciardi, a streetwise former infielder with a thick Massachusetts accent. “Let’s just get some dinner.” In recent weeks, in laying groundwork for possible alternatives to Zobrist, the Mets had engaged the Pittsburgh Pirates on second baseman Neil Walker, but never felt close to a deal. “Would you consider Walker for Niese?” Huntington asks Ricciardi, referring to Jonathon Niese, a 29-year-old lefthanded pitcher. Niese is solid but unspectacular, and has put off teammates by complaining about their defensive play. The decision to part with him is not difficult, Mets officials later admit privately...When Ricco ends his call, Ricciardi tells him about the offers. Ricco immediately likes it — veteran for veteran, no need to sacrifice a prospect. It makes sense, and the Mets decide to do it. A few minutes later, a team official who’d been away for a few hours returns to the suite and sees Walker’s name back on the whiteboard. “What’s that?” he says. “We’re getting him,” another official answers. Alderson gets on the phone from New York to close the deal with Huntington. By 2 p.m. the trade is done; the team announces it at 6:30. The text of which suggests that the Niese/Walker trade was most certainly NOT in place when the Zobrist offer was extended. Therefore, proving CF right, and Chuck/Edgy wrong. But oddly, high fives all around from Chuck and Edgy. Edgy MD: Makes clear that they were inquiring on Walker before Zobrist went to Chicago. Reality Chuck: As was reported at the time. Edgy MD: Indeed. But reinforcement helps. Have they forgotten the positions they took in the prior thread? It certainly seems like it. Edgy is even quoting passages from the article that work against his position. Centerfield responds with quotes from the original thread proving he was right. Centerfield ends up reinforcing his developing reputation as a CPF curmudgeon.

Edgy MD Dec 18 2015 09:27 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

No, I have not forgotten my position.

d'Kong76 Dec 18 2015 09:30 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Centerfield wrote: Centerfield ends up reinforcing his developing reputation as a CPF curmudgeon. Line forms over there, please grab a clipboard and have paper- work ready when your name is called.

Centerfield Dec 18 2015 09:48 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Edgy MD wrote: No, I have not forgotten my position. Yeah? Then why gloat as if you were right, instead of saying "Looks like CF had it pegged after all." Hell. Or even not just saying anything at all?

Edgy MD Dec 18 2015 09:55 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

You haven't seen me gloat. Curmudgeon isn't a word I'd use. Lawyer is, in that you'll inexhaustibly argue a tenuous point to try to win through an obscuring volume of assertions, hoping somehow your exhausted partners in conversation won't see where in the smokescreen you've subtly changed their position and wiggled yours. But I do. Because I'm not as stupid as you seemingly hope. Even if I am as exhausted and demoralized as you might hope. Simple point: Yes, the Mets did have alternative plans to aquiring Zobrist. Of course they did. It's the least controversial thing in the world.

Centerfield Dec 18 2015 11:41 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

That's weak. There is no lawyering going on anywhere. It's a simple point. I said the Mets should have negotiated the Walker trade first. Both you and Chuck said that you thought the Mets did just that. Chuck's language accused me of "ignoring the evidence". Martino's article states that they absolutely did not have the Walker deal in place. But you and Chuck started dancing around as if the article vindicates you in some way. It's not a "tenuous point". There are no "obscuring volume of assertions". There's just one, simple point. Did they have the Walker trade in place or not? No. They didn't. I was right. You two were wrong. Despite being wrong, you patted each other on the back pretending that was the position you took all along. I'm supposed to just watch that idiotic shift in position and just pretend you were right? And please don't play victim with me. I'm sorry if I exhaust you. Let's be clear what happened. 1. I was critical of the Mets. Not anyone here. Not you. Not Chuck. I said they should have had the Walker deal in place. 2. You and Chuck were critical of me. You both asserted that the Walker deal was or might well have been in place. 3. TURNS OUT I WAS FUCKING RIGHT. At this point, you had the option to: 1. Acknowledge your mistake. Say "Hey CF, I guess you were right all along." 2. Say nothing at all. 3. Inexplicably gloat and pretend that's what you meant all along, even though this is a message board, and all of your words are right there in black and white. You chose to do #3. And after you criticized my point, ended up being wrong, and then gloated as if you were right anyway, you say "Geez, I wonder why this guy argues so inexhaustibly. Freakin' lawyers." Yup. Sounds about right.

Edgy MD Dec 19 2015 12:16 AM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

I didn't and don't "gloat." For Christ's sake. I'm going to go stand in traffic.

d'Kong76 Dec 19 2015 12:29 AM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

I know I'm not the poster child for, "guys, jeez..." But, "guys, jeez..."

Centerfield Dec 19 2015 04:27 AM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Edgy MD wrote: I didn't and don't "gloat." For Christ's sake. I'm going to go stand in traffic. Ok. Fine. You weren't gloating. It seemed like you were gloating. And I still don't know what you feel was "reinforced". We disagreed whether the trade was in place or not, and in the end, it was not in place. The word I would have chosen would be "refuted". And if you didn't want to discuss such an insignificant point, I don't see why you would raise the issue more than a week later. But I do agree with you that we've exhausted everything to be said on this topic. Move over. Let me have some traffic.

Fman99 Dec 19 2015 12:05 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

You know what you two need? A little comic strip called "Love Is..." It's about two naked eight year olds who are married.

Centerfield Dec 21 2015 03:22 PM Re: Winter Meeting Recap

Not sure what that post means. But I still love Edgy. NTTAWWT. His underwear on the other hand...