Master Index of Archived Threads


Defending De Aza

Mex17 Feb 17 2016 12:19 PM

Really, this is getting stupid. I'm not saying that De Aza is going to carry the team on his back, but wasn't there a lot of talk about how having a deep, flexible roster over the last two months of 2015 was a real benefit? "It wasn't just Cespedes, Uribe and Johnson were great assets too!!!" De Aza is a professional hitter who should be able to help against rightys off the bench in a pinch hitting role and can spell an aging Grandy and perhaps even insure against an inexperienced Conforto and it's almost like he is being looked at as a detriment to the team right now. It's just silly. We have him. We should keep him and see how he can contribute. https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/mets-could ... /164636682

El Segundo Escupidor Feb 17 2016 12:32 PM Re: Defending De Aza

I agree. Additional considerations: (1) His salary is around the same as a jobber reliever (2) He is not impeding the progress of anybody (3) Competition for places in pro-sports is one of the best motivating factors.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 17 2016 12:35 PM Re: Defending De Aza

It's true he was acquired as a safety net and we could presumably go without him if necessary but would do fine as a 5th OF. Not sure he needs defending!

Fman99 Feb 17 2016 01:37 PM Re: Defending De Aza

Nobody puts De Aza in a corner!

Edgy MD Feb 17 2016 01:46 PM Re: Defending De Aza

Woe to any thread that opens with the line "This is stupid." Some folks need their whipping boys, and even on a defending National League champion, they'll look to the end of the roster to find them.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 17 2016 02:24 PM Re: Defending De Aza

I don't think that saying he may be dealt is an attack on him by any means. The Mets have a lot of outfielders and are short on guys with first base experience. I've said this before in other threads, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if De Aza was traded for an guy who's more of a 1B-OF than just an OF.

Ceetar Feb 17 2016 02:25 PM Re: Defending De Aza

Edgy MD wrote: Woe to any thread that opens with the line "This is stupid." Some folks need their whipping boys, and even on a defending National League champion, they'll look to the end of the roster to find them. I thought Duda was the whipping boy for being streaky and soft?

seawolf17 Feb 17 2016 02:34 PM Re: Defending De Aza

I think we were all upset about DeAza when we were looking at him getting 400-500 AB. Now that he'll be in the 150 AB range, I think we're all a lot chiller.

Edgy MD Feb 17 2016 02:40 PM Re: Defending De Aza

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Woe to any thread that opens with the line "This is stupid." Some folks need their whipping boys, and even on a defending National League champion, they'll look to the end of the roster to find them. I thought Duda was the whipping boy for being streaky and soft? Different boys for different whippers.

Frayed Knot Feb 17 2016 02:44 PM Re: Defending De Aza

From the linked piece, quoting Ken Rosenthal: "The Mets could eventually try to trade outfielder Alejandro de Aza, whom they signed in the offseason, but want to wait until they are certain their current set of outfielders is healthy heading into the regular season ..." Some of this is obviously stems from the idea that De Aza may not have been signed at all if the Mets had any idea that they'd be able to find common ground with Cespedes - but you could take that opening statement and tweak it to say: 'the Mets could eventually try to trade [every single role playing part-timer on the team] depending on the status of other players around them' ... and the statement would remain essentially accurate.

Centerfield Feb 17 2016 02:54 PM Re: Defending De Aza

I think a lot will be determined by how Wilmer looks at 1B. If he can be serviceable, then I think the need to make any move is lessened. If he can't do it, then I think Ben Grimm is right and we will look to bring in a Rayburn type. I think both De Aza and Tejada being on the bench are moves that we would not have made if we had known how things would break this winter. But that's baseball.

Vic Sage Feb 17 2016 02:56 PM Re: Defending De Aza

De Aza is clearly better than the 5th OFers on most teams, but we're paying more for that role than we should, or need to, considering budget concerns. That's the only reason trade talks are rumored. Also, we'll be using Flores as our backup 1bman, so an OFer with some experience at 1b wouldn't hurt either. My main concern with DeAza is that, when he signed, he thought he would be the long end of a CF platoon, but now he's looking at 150 ABs or so as a PHer/5th OFer, so he may turn sour on us. Its better to have a guy who has signed on for that role rather than having it foisted on him.

Edgy MD Feb 17 2016 02:58 PM Re: Defending De Aza

I think we may actually, somehow, have a home opener without a single guy getting audibly booed. Folks may be over Tejada, but giving his leg to the cause has got to have bought him some goodwill. The series goats are either gone (Murphy) or still glossy (Cespedes) or enjoying so deep an emotional commitment among the fans so as to blot out any alleged sins (Shmarvey, Familia). De Aza may get the closest thing to a boo bashing just for existing — for being an unpopular signing at a time when it was believed he was the booby prize for losing Cespedes. He isn't that at all, now, but there might be some habitual, residual angst there.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 17 2016 03:25 PM Re: Defending De Aza Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 17 2016 03:46 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't think that saying he may be dealt is an attack on him by any means. The Mets have a lot of outfielders and are short on guys with first base experience. I've said this before in other threads, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if De Aza was traded for an guy who's more of a 1B-OF than just an OF. Exactly. The cold truth is that re-signing Cespedes has marginalized De Aza's expected role significantly. This is fact and acknowledging it or trying to suss out the possible consequences to De Aza should be expected and even desired. I hope no one here thinks I'm dancing on De Aza's grave for writing this post.

Ceetar Feb 17 2016 03:38 PM Re: Defending De Aza

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Exactly. The cold truth is that re-signing Cespedes has marginalized De Aza's expected role significantly. His media-expected role anyway. I don't know how the Mets viewed him initially, personally I always expected them to grab another guy, even if it wasn't a given star. I expected De Aza's role and value to be the same as it is today and this doesn't change my opinion of his signing. Yes, he's more expendable by virtue of number of bodies, but that is of course true of everyone. Filler posts.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 17 2016 03:44 PM Re: Defending De Aza

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Exactly. The cold truth is that re-signing Cespedes has marginalized De Aza's expected role significantly. .... Yes, he's more expendable by virtue of number of bodies, but that is of course true of everyone. Filler posts. De Aza's more expendable because the Mets acquired a player (Cespedes) who plays De Aza's position and is higher up on the depth chart. You can't say that about any other Met that was expected to get at least 300 PA's in 2016.

Ceetar Feb 17 2016 03:49 PM Re: Defending De Aza

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Exactly. The cold truth is that re-signing Cespedes has marginalized De Aza's expected role significantly. .... Yes, he's more expendable by virtue of number of bodies, but that is of course true of everyone. Filler posts. De Aza's more expendable because the Mets acquired a player (Cespedes) who plays De Aza's position and is higher up on the depth chart. You can't say that about any other Met that was expected to get at least 300 PA's in 2016. I don't think De Aza was expected to get 300 PAs but I could see how someone that wrote that would also write a 'they should trade him now' piece.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 17 2016 03:57 PM Re: Defending De Aza

So how many PA's did you think De Aza would get before Cespedes was re-signed?

Ceetar Feb 17 2016 04:12 PM Re: Defending De Aza

batmagadanleadoff wrote: So how many PA's did you think De Aza would get before Cespedes was re-signed? If he was good? maybe 180? If he struggled, maybe 90.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 17 2016 04:19 PM Re: Defending De Aza

It may have turned out that way (it also would have depended on Lagares' performance) but my understanding was that the plan for De Aza was to be the starting center fielder against right-handed pitchers, in which case he could easily have accumulated 300 plate appearances.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 17 2016 04:34 PM Re: Defending De Aza

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: So how many PA's did you think De Aza would get before Cespedes was re-signed? If he was good? maybe 180? If he struggled, maybe 90. Good. De Aza's more expendable because the Mets acquired a player (Cespedes) who plays De Aza's position and is higher up on the depth chart. You can't say that about any other Met that was expected to get at least 180 PA's in 2016.

Ceetar Feb 17 2016 04:44 PM Re: Defending De Aza

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Good. De Aza's more expendable because the Mets acquired a player (Cespedes) who plays De Aza's position and is higher up on the depth chart. You can't say that about any other Met that was expected to get at least 180 PA's in 2016. Tejada and Flores are more expendable because the Mets signed Cabera and Walker. A myriad of relievers are more expendable based on signings. Verrett and Montero are more expendable because they signed Colon. The other three+ outfielders are more expendable. Campbell got 206 PA last season. he's more expendable. Carlos Torres was expended. as was Ceciliani. Nieuwenhuis.

Edgy MD Feb 17 2016 04:45 PM Re: Defending De Aza

The general objection, it would seem, is not his relative expendability (and it's silly to get caught up in this, guyzz), but the seeming urgency to expend him. They haven't gotten through spring training yet, and with Nieuwenhuis and Ceciliani dealt off, what remains behind him is the untried Nimmo and the infielder-who-fakes-it-in-the-outfield-who-is-coming-off-a-bad-year Campbell. So, I'm sure management sees him as having the potential to be dealt, overpaid and possibly underutilized as he is, but they probably would want to move some pieces or let some actions play out before making such a move. And Sandy has certainly demonstrated a willingness to let things play out. De Aza could be a starting Mets outfielder this time next week.

El Segundo Escupidor Feb 17 2016 07:00 PM Re: Defending De Aza

Centerfield wrote: I think a lot will be determined by how Wilmer looks at 1B. If he can be serviceable, then I think the need to make any move is lessened. If he can't do it, then I think Ben Grimm is right and we will look to bring in a Rayburn type. I'd take Raburn over De Aza in a heartbeat. Can't figure out why he hasn't been signed yet -- is he crook?

Ceetar Feb 17 2016 07:08 PM Re: Defending De Aza

El Segundo Escupidor wrote: Centerfield wrote: I think a lot will be determined by how Wilmer looks at 1B. If he can be serviceable, then I think the need to make any move is lessened. If he can't do it, then I think Ben Grimm is right and we will look to bring in a Rayburn type. I'd take Raburn over De Aza in a heartbeat. Can't figure out why he hasn't been signed yet -- is he crook? he's really really really (really) bad in even years it seems like. so it seems hard to tell if he's reliable. 2 of the last 4 years have been absolute black hole.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 17 2016 09:55 PM Re: Defending De Aza

JP Morosi, FOX Sports wrote: Although sources say the Rangers aren't close to adding a full-time left fielder, they're nonetheless keeping tabs on the trade market for New York Mets outfielder Alejandro De Aza, as well as maintaining contact with free agents David Murphy and Will Venable, both of whom have prior experience with the team.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 18 2016 05:31 AM Re: Defending De Aza

Ceetar wrote: El Segundo Escupidor wrote: Centerfield wrote: I think a lot will be determined by how Wilmer looks at 1B. If he can be serviceable, then I think the need to make any move is lessened. If he can't do it, then I think Ben Grimm is right and we will look to bring in a Rayburn type. I'd take Raburn over De Aza in a heartbeat. Can't figure out why he hasn't been signed yet -- is he crook? he's really really really (really) bad in even years it seems like. so it seems hard to tell if he's reliable. 2 of the last 4 years have been absolute black hole. Also-- and I vaguely remember mentioning this one or two or three times, back when we were talking about Pearce-Byrdish things-- Raburn doesn't, like, play first. Flores has played about as much first in the minors as Raburn has in his perfeshunal career. Y'want some scone-cold professional pin-wielding? The kind of guy who'll roast righties while not costing too much dough? Why not try a Baker?

Edgy MD Feb 18 2016 02:15 PM Re: Defending De Aza

I'm thinking Baker is done being an outfielder, though.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 18 2016 03:49 PM Re: Defending De Aza

So was Coach Cuddy, and that didn't stop us. (Alternate smart-assery: "Good thing we've got five of THOSE, then." Alternate smart-assery 2: "Great that you caught that; the last thing we need out there are some real defensive question marks.")

Edgy MD Feb 29 2016 06:27 PM Re: Defending De Aza

Curtis Granderson leaves camp to deal with an eye issue. Boom! De Aza is our new first string right fielder.

Nymr83 Feb 29 2016 06:32 PM Re: Defending De Aza

Edgy MD wrote: I think we may actually, somehow, have a home opener without a single guy getting audibly booed. Folks may be over Tejada, but giving his leg to the cause has got to have bought him some goodwill. The series goats are either gone (Murphy) or still glossy (Cespedes) or enjoying so deep an emotional commitment among the fans so as to blot out any alleged sins (Shmarvey, Familia). De Aza may get the closest thing to a boo bashing just for existing — for being an unpopular signing at a time when it was believed he was the booby prize for losing Cespedes. He isn't that at all, now, but there might be some habitual, residual angst there. The home opener is against the Phillies, the fans an find plenty to boo and happily not direct it at the Mets!

Ceetar Feb 29 2016 06:43 PM Re: Defending De Aza

Nymr83 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I think we may actually, somehow, have a home opener without a single guy getting audibly booed. Folks may be over Tejada, but giving his leg to the cause has got to have bought him some goodwill. The series goats are either gone (Murphy) or still glossy (Cespedes) or enjoying so deep an emotional commitment among the fans so as to blot out any alleged sins (Shmarvey, Familia). De Aza may get the closest thing to a boo bashing just for existing — for being an unpopular signing at a time when it was believed he was the booby prize for losing Cespedes. He isn't that at all, now, but there might be some habitual, residual angst there. The home opener is against the Phillies, the fans an find plenty to boo and happily not direct it at the Mets! The average Mets fan would have trouble naming two Phillies.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 29 2016 07:47 PM Re: Defending De Aza

I think I would too, and I live in the Philadelphia market. I know Ryan Howard is still there, but I'm drawing blanks on anyone else. Ask me again in July and I'll probably be able to come up with a few more.

dgwphotography Feb 29 2016 07:48 PM Re: Defending De Aza

Mike Schmidt and Greg Luzinski. Easy peasy

Benjamin Grimm Feb 29 2016 07:52 PM Re: Defending De Aza

You forgot Von Hayes.

themetfairy Feb 29 2016 07:57 PM Re: Defending De Aza

Bastardo. Hamels. Um....

dgwphotography Feb 29 2016 09:53 PM Re: Defending De Aza

Benjamin Grimm wrote: You forgot Von Hayes. Now I'm flashing back to that 26-7 game...