Master Index of Archived Threads


Zobrist vs Cespedes

Mex17 Jan 25 2016 02:17 PM

Riddle me this. . . Why are they so hesitant to commit to Cespedes for his age 33 season but were more than willing to give four years to Zobrist when the contract would have started at his age 35 season?

Fman99 Jan 25 2016 02:20 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

Cespeses is a Latino 30 - which means he may be 2-3 years older than advertised. I think there's less uncertainty about players' real ages when they are born here in the states (Zobrist is from Illinois).

Edgy MD Jan 25 2016 02:32 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

I think Latino is a bit broad at this point, as the system and individual organizations have grown more sophisticated about sussing out ID fraud over the last 10 or 12 years. But obviously Cuban players can still be a mystery, hailing from a land scouts for US organizations haven't been allowed to venture. But beyond that, I imagine they see his as a skill set — both primary and secondary skills — as more vulnerable to time and her petty crimes.

Centerfield Jan 25 2016 02:36 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

Plus there was that small issue of an extra $10 million AAV.

Edgy MD Jan 25 2016 02:37 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

Yeah, I mean to note that also.

Ceetar Jan 25 2016 02:50 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

position and versatility certainly helps with Zobrist.

Frayed Knot Jan 25 2016 03:09 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

Two words (which double as a blast from the past): 'Better Fit' I believe they saw Zobrist as one with: - maybe the lower ceiling as compared to Yo but also a higher floor; his OBP skills giving him the better OPS for most of his career as compared to the more erratic Cespedes - versatility. Zobrist had a position vacated specifically for him (2B) and could fill in at multiple others as opposed to Cespedes whose best slot is already filled with the promising rookie and will instead bump the other young OF to the bench

Mex17 Jan 25 2016 03:17 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

I can only speak for myself, but I thought that Zobrist was a horrible fit for the Mets. At second, him on a multi-year contract would have blocked Herrera. At shortstop, same thing with Rosario and Cecchini. At third, you already have $20 million for the next three seasons tied up in another player (stenosis notwithstanding). In the outfield, would his bat really carry? As a very expensive Joe McEwing, then maybe. But you would have been paying a lot on money for that over four years. The only other thing I can think about regarding the lack of willingness to go to the fourth year with is that they would then be tied up with him at the same time this supposedly "super class" of free agents (headed by Bryce Harper) is going to be available.

Frayed Knot Jan 25 2016 03:48 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

- Herrera is still only a maybe as opposed to Conforto & Lagares who are older and already proven (to one degree or another) major leaguers. - Ditto Cecchini & Rosario; Zobrist was never going to be a starting SS anyway, but someone who can fill-in at that spot has increased value. His signing probably makes the Cabrera one unnecessary - Nor was he going to be signed to play 3B full-time but he can if needed and we know the full-time guy there is going to require relief - yes, his bat would work in the OF. Like I said, a very similar OPS to Cespedes over the last few years.

Centerfield Jan 25 2016 04:24 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

I think the versatility helps, but Zobrist was basically going to be our 2nd baseman. Which makes it a question of Herrera versus Lagares and Conforto. I would argue that Conforto hasn't proven anything yet. I mean, he looks great, and I hope he will be a star. But I think it's way to early to say he's proven anything. He's only had 25 more AB's than Herrera. But I agree that you'd have to be insane to block his progress. Lagares, is more proven, but he's kinda proven that he's not very good, at least with the bat. I definitely think this is where a club looking to win immediately should be looking to improve. Scouts rave about Herrera. And since the idea that young, cost-controlled players are the key to winning teams, I think it would have been a bad idea to block our second best positional prospect. That's why Walker fits so well. 1 year commitment. And with his splits, if roster space allowed, he could even platoon with Dilson.

Frayed Knot Jan 25 2016 04:46 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

I would describe scouts as being intrigued by Herrera, based mostly on his age and power potential in a middle infield spot. But he's hardly the kind of sure thing that you arrange your ML roster around, especially how we know that even can't-miss prospects can and do miss. Compared to him (and to Cecchini and to Rosario) Conforto and Lagares are MUCH more proven at this point.

Centerfield Jan 25 2016 05:26 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

Frayed Knot wrote: I would describe scouts as being intrigued by Herrera, based mostly on his age and power potential in a middle infield spot. But he's hardly the kind of sure thing that you arrange your ML roster around, especially how we know that even can't-miss prospects can and do miss. Compared to him (and to Cecchini and to Rosario) Conforto and Lagares are MUCH more proven at this point. Really? Much more proven? Conforto has 25 more AB's than Herrera (174 total). This is hardly enough time to prove anything. Even if you count his 30 post-season AB's, I think the sample size is too small to conclude anything. Look, I'm with you on Conforto, but your position seems very arbitrary to me. You're basically saying Conforto is "much more proven" after 174 AB's. So much so that you give him the starting job and forego all the other options available in free agency, even though the best hitters available are corner outfielders. But with Herrera, he is "still only a maybe" after 149 AB's. And so you give a 35 year old a 4 year contract at 2B. Now, I get that Conforto is off to a much better start for his major league career than Herrera, but I think it's a mistake to block either of them.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 25 2016 05:31 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

Plus, Zobrist is already at the age where middle infielders, typically, can't play the middle infield anymore, let alone a coupl'a years from now.

RealityChuck Jan 25 2016 05:46 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

Cespedes is a slugger with a low OBA. A contract of more than three years starts getting to the point where his slugging skills will erode, so you're stuck with a big contract if you go too far out. Zobrist is more an OBA guy, a skill that doesn't erode so precipitously. Even toward the end of the contract, he'd be useful. But the Mets aren't the only ones who thought a long-term contract was a risk. Washington's bid was a desperation play, but most other teams thought that Cespedes was too much a risk.

Centerfield Jan 25 2016 05:51 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

RealityChuck wrote: Zobrist is more an OBA guy, a skill that doesn't erode so precipitously. Even toward the end of the contract, he'd be useful. "RealityChuck speaks truth. Four year deals to aging second basemen who's primary skill is OBP are totally a good idea." - Luis Castillo, age 32 at the time.

Lefty Specialist Jan 25 2016 06:09 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

Oh, snap.

Mex17 Jan 25 2016 06:11 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

RealityChuck wrote: but most other teams thought that Cespedes was too much a risk. Meaning perhaps that he won't find a better deal in a year and decide to not opt-out?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 25 2016 06:37 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

He won't opt out because he's found a better deal, or not opt out because he hasn't. He'll act based on what he believes will happen. And he has a pretty sizable belief in what he's worth, I believe.

Centerfield Jan 25 2016 06:50 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

But the logic of the argument is faulty. RealityChuck wrote: But the Mets aren't the only ones who thought a long-term contract was a risk. Washington's bid was a desperation play, but most other teams thought that Cespedes was too much a risk. Players usually sign with the highest bidder. This mean that in most cases, no team thinks that any free agent is worth the contract they sign besides the team that signs them. Most people liked the Blevins deal, but most likely, no other team thought he was worth $4 million. That doesn't make it a bad contract. The Cespedes contract is unique in that it's the rare instance where there actually was a team that bid more that was left at the altar. Were they motivated by desperation? Maybe. Maybe not. How do we know what motivates any team? If you are using "what other teams were offering" as a gauge of the strength of a deal, the Cespedes deal should pass with flying colors.

Centerfield Jan 25 2016 06:54 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

Another way to put it, the topic of this thread is Zobrist versus Cespedes. In the Zobrist pursuit, only the Mets and Cubs offered four years. Applying Chuck's logic, this means that most other clubs believed Zobrist was too much a risk. Which means that the Zobrist contract, is a bad idea. And unlike the Cespedes contract, no other club offered significantly more than the Mets. Meaning it's even worse than the Cespedes deal. You cannot apply the standard to one player as justification but not apply it to others.

dgwphotography Jan 25 2016 07:56 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

I was relieved when Zobrist went elsewhere, and I'm ecstatic that Cespedes is returning for less than the 6 years he was originally looking for.

Centerfield Jan 25 2016 08:56 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

And Zobrist spurning the Mets ended up being the best thing that could have happened. If Zobrist had signed, we don't get Walker, and there would be no way Cespedes returns, no matter how much his price dropped. Like with Carlos Gomez before him, we were lucky Sandy's first choice fell through. It's funny that the end result, in both instances, ended up being Cespedes. Let's hope it works out anywhere near as well as the first time. As much behind-the-scenes reporting as there is, we don't know everything and so people are going to believe what they believe. But for me, I don't buy the "good fit" argument for a second. You can make just as many baseball arguments, better ones in fact, against signing Zobrist long-term as you can against any of the elite outfielders. Edgy said he hoped the Mets were not influenced by PR. I would hope so too, but that's not reality. I think the Zobrist move was all fueled by PR. After taking a step back and looking at how the offseason developed, I believe that the Mets came into this offseason targeting Ben Zobrist as the one "big name" free agent that they could afford. I think they knew that this would block their 2nd best position prospect, and that it probably is not a good idea to give an old guy four years, but Zobrist was their only chance to save face. He was a good enough player and had enough star power to offset the backlash they would get when they passed on Cespedes. They would cite his actual stats (which are pretty good), him being a "winning player", the "no-holes in the lineup approach", and enough people would buy into it that they could sell it. They would make their other supplemental moves, raise payroll slightly, and then go into the season. I think they gauged the market and saw that they would have to go 4 years to ensure they got him, but that no one else would match that. And I think they were shocked when the Cubs swooped in and got him.

Frayed Knot Jan 25 2016 09:08 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

Centerfield wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: I would describe scouts as being intrigued by Herrera, based mostly on his age and power potential in a middle infield spot. But he's hardly the kind of sure thing that you arrange your ML roster around, especially how we know that even can't-miss prospects can and do miss. Compared to him (and to Cecchini and to Rosario) Conforto and Lagares are MUCH more proven at this point. Really? Much more proven? Conforto has 25 more AB's than Herrera (174 total). This is hardly enough time to prove anything. Not just more ML ABs but more success at the ML level [841 OPS vs 690]. Also MC is older, came out of a major college program, 1st round pick, went quickly through the minors, etc. IOW, he's closer to knowing what he'll be as compared to Herrera who's still young and still very much much a work in progress. He may be a good major leaguer in a year or three but that's hardly a given. Not that Conforto's a given either but, yeah, I'd call him the much better bet at this point. Don't fall victim to the grass is greener syndrome with prospects. You may not love Lagares but most prospects will never get to where he is now at age 26. You're basically saying Conforto is "much more proven" after 174 AB's. So much so that you give him the starting job and forego all the other options available in free agency, even though the best hitters available are corner outfielders. But with Herrera, he is "still only a maybe" after 149 AB's. And so you give a 35 year old a 4 year contract at 2B. Look, I'm not arguing that I would have preferred the Zobrist deal as reported over the Cespedes deal; I'm in fact quite happy with the ways things turned out. Mex asked why the team was willing to go longer for Zobrist than for Cespedes and I gave what I thought was their reasoning. Also remember that it's not like Zobrist x 4 vs Cespedes x 3 was a known choice at the same time. I suspect they never thought YC's price/length would come down to where it did and neither did anyone else. When it did, they jumped. But, yes, I do think it's reasonable to say (and this is kind of already plowed ground here) that, because there were three OFs already under contract and capable of starting, focusing on a guy who would play the open hold at 2B while also being capable of playing almost everywhere else (1B, SS, 3B, corner OF) when/if necessary was a reasonable option. And, no, I don't think that teams who view themselves as in contention should make plans or pass on present options with the idea that the path has to be kept open for a 21 y/o prospect who might crack the back half of the top-100 lists this winter.

Centerfield Jan 25 2016 09:29 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

I think Mex's question was why 4 years for Zobrist, but not for Cespedes. My guess is that the 4 years for Zobrist was fueled by PR (above), and they didn't go 4 years on Cespedes because they realized at some point that they didn't have to. Once they decided that they were in on Cespedes, they played it perfectly. I get what you are saying about Conforto versus Herrera. I would counter that even though he is younger, he's had nearly 2000 professional PA's and he's hit at every level. That's why I distinguish him from say, Amed Rosario, who is just potential but no actual results. Look, he may end up sucking, but he has nothing more to prove at AAA and I think he deserves a shot. I'm glad that they brought in a short-term solution.

Mex17 Jan 25 2016 09:42 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

Centerfield wrote: I think Mex's question was why 4 years for Zobrist, but not for Cespedes. It was also why is 33 "old" for Cespedes whereas 38 seemingly is not for Zobrist. Edgy addressed that a little bit above, but still I wonder. I heard Harold Reynolds lamenting the general situation earlier on MLB network by saying that players are now being deemed over the hill right at the point at which they are supposedly finally putting the pieces of the game together in their heads. It is also inherently unfair either way it swings. If a player is (for lack of a better term) blacklisted when he hits a certain age, then he is screwed out of his market value that he produced upon when he was under team control. Alternatively, if a team is forced to throw big time money and years at a player who is at a more advanced age for services rendered to the competition and not have any reasonable expectations for the same level of service to be rendered to them, then how the hell does that make any sense?

Frayed Knot Jan 25 2016 10:57 PM Re: Zobrist vs Cespedes

Centerfield wrote: I think Mex's question was why 4 years for Zobrist, but not for Cespedes. And I thought that was what I answered. "My guess is that the 4 years for Zobrist was fueled by PR (above)" --- I'm willing to give Sandy the benefit of the doubt that any move he gives his stamp of approval to is one that he thinks is best for the team and doesn't get caught up in pr moves just to replace one name with another (Coleman for Strawberry for ex.). Doesn't mean they always will work out but I believe they're with the best of intentions. " and they didn't go 4 years on Cespedes because they realized at some point that they didn't have to. Once they decided that they were in on Cespedes, they played it perfectly." --- Except that they can't have known that a 3-year deal was enough at a time when there was a supposed four (or was it five?) year deal out there, and from a division opponent no less. All indications are that the Mets simply did not want to go more than three for Cespedes and I believe were willing to walk away had he insisted. "I get what you are saying about Conforto versus Herrera. I would counter that even though he is younger, he's had nearly 2000 professional PA's and he's hit at every level. That's why I distinguish him from say, Amed Rosario, who is just potential but no actual results. Look, he may end up sucking, but he has nothing more to prove at AAA and I think he deserves a shot. I'm glad that they brought in a short-term solution." --- And I'm fine with it too, I just don't think you make moves (or not) based on having Dilson Herrera in your system. I wouldn't do it for Rosario either although having a reported legit SS glove potentially sets his ceiling higher than that of an easier to find or replace 2B prospect. But that discussion is at least a year away.