Master Index of Archived Threads


Pollock thread redux

Mex17 Jan 15 2019 04:21 PM

https://twitter.com/martinonyc/status/1085200682762817538 Mets still "monitoring". One-year pillow contract is a possibility.

nymr83 Jan 15 2019 04:22 PM Re: Pollock thread redux

a "pillow" contract? never heard that one before

A Boy Named Seo Jan 15 2019 04:49 PM Re: Pollock thread redux

One-year deal, more buck$.

Centerfield Jan 16 2019 07:48 AM Re: Pollock thread redux

I'm not crazy about Pollack. But I guess he's better than nothing. Pollack, at least, has a chance to be productive if healthy. Lagares and Broxton don't have any chance (unless they miraculously transform their careers this many years in). I wonder if Pollack is waiting for Harper to sign, thinking that the also-rans will pursue him. So basically, he's thinking the price goes up if he holds out, while teams are thinking the price goes down.

Johnny Lunchbucket Jan 16 2019 08:04 AM Re: Pollock thread redux

Yeah Pollock has obviously been waiting to collect $$ from the loser of the Harper sweeps. I'm still in denial that the Mets won't shock everyone and get Harpo; but I think Pollock would be a good get too

Centerfield Jan 16 2019 09:28 AM Re: Pollock thread redux

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I'm still in denial that the Mets won't shock everyone and get Harpo I think you and I might be the only suckers left in NY.

Edgy MD Jan 16 2019 10:06 AM Re: Pollock thread redux

=Centerfield post_id=1234 time=1547650084 user_id=65]Lagares and Broxton don't have any chance (unless they miraculously transform their careers this many years in).

Talk about suckers. I tend to think it'll take something less than a miracle to get productivity from these two.



I don't have the number in front of me, because all sports sites are now blocked at work. But a few years back (2014? 2015?) Lagares had something like the 17th (?) best non-pitching WAR season in team history (somewhere in the mid-fives?).



Now I know (1) that assertion is flecked with question marks, (2) at least 3.0 of that 5.something was based on defense, (3) he's unlikely to ever provide that much defensive value again, and (4) a season that ends in toe surgery sends up red flags for potential chronic disability going forward.



But (1) he showed some promise last season before getting hurt, (2) there's no reason why an offensive increase can't somewhat offset a defensive dropoff, (3) Broxton is a year younger with better history of health, and (4) it's January, so I'm not putting my money on hopeless.



But I certainly won't complain if they land another outfielder. And even if that's a corner-man, I'm pretty bullish on Nimmo's chances to be a good centerfielder. He's really good coming in on the ball (like Lagares). What problems he's had have seemingly been tracking balls deep in the gap.

metsmarathon Jan 16 2019 10:11 AM Re: Pollock thread redux

i'm still a sucker. always. i even look at it from the standpoint of, if yo is ever healthy again, he'd become an expensive but valuable trade chip. if he's not healthy, we'd be stuck paying him either way, so why not maybe pay for him to play somewhere else while getting something of value in return if he is healthy.

ashie62 Jan 17 2019 12:08 PM Re: Pollock thread redux

I don't know about Pollock, but the acquistion of Keon Broxton brings very little to the team. Rather have Tebow for crying out loud

nymr83 Jan 17 2019 01:50 PM Re: Pollock thread redux

=ashie62 post_id=1317 time=1547752124 user_id=90] I don't know about Pollock, but the acquistion of Keon Broxton brings very little to the team. Rather have Tebow for crying out loud

come on. Broxton is a positive defensive CF with some speed and some pop. he is a slight upgrade to Lagares. that may be nothing special, but i wouldnt criticize his presence on the roster.

Edgy MD Jan 17 2019 09:25 PM Re: Pollock thread redux

And it's not like Broxton vs. Tebow isn't a false choice. The team can have both/and. And indeed, they DO!

Edgy MD Jan 17 2019 09:25 PM Re: Pollock thread redux

And it's not like Broxton vs. Tebow isn't a false choice. The team can have both/and. And indeed, they DO!

LWFS Jan 17 2019 11:19 PM Re: Pollock thread redux

I would decidedly NOT rather have Tebow than Broxton on my roster. Do we want Pollock because he's Pollock? Or do we want him because he's... something?

Centerfield Jan 18 2019 05:47 AM Re: Pollock thread redux

I would spend the money on Harper first. Then Machado second even though we got 27 infielders and spent more than we would on Machado. And then if we can't have that, then Pollack. And if no Pollack then pitchers. Another starter. Bullpen help. A lefty in particular. And then if not that I'd ask for statues at Citi. A waterslide for the kids maybe. Maybe they could get cheerleaders. I would buy shakeweights. Invest it with Dykstra. Donate it to Michael Bolton's comeback bid. I would rather use it for anything than just let the Wilpons keep it for personal debt.

Fman99 Jan 18 2019 05:56 AM Re: Pollock thread redux

=Centerfield post_id=1359 time=1547815679 user_id=65] I would spend the money on Harper first. Then Machado second even though we got 27 infielders and spent more than we would on Machado. And then if we can't have that, then Pollack. And if no Pollack then pitchers. Another starter. Bullpen help. A lefty in particular. And then if not that I'd ask for statues at Citi. A waterslide for the kids maybe. Maybe they could get cheerleaders. I would buy shakeweights. Invest it with Dykstra. Donate it to Michael Bolton's comeback bid. I would rather use it for anything than just let the Wilpons keep it for personal debt.

Brilliant. I'm ready to roll over my 401k to you and put you in charge of my household finances.

smg58 Jan 18 2019 07:55 AM Re: Pollock thread redux

Pollock has the upside to be the second best centerfielder in baseball, and an injury history that makes Lagares look like Cal Ripken. He would intrigue me on a short-term deal for one or two years, but the risks outweigh the benefits for anything longer than that. Of course, you would also be trading a draft pick for one or two years of a high-risk player, so he'd also have to come at a good salary for me to bite. I agree with CF that the team could use a starter and more bullpen help. Like I was telling my dad, we brought in all these infielders, but I trust TJ Rivera more than I trust Jason Vargas. I do think Avilan was a good pickup -- but as somebody to compete with Zamora for one of two bullpen spots for lefties, with the other going to somebody who's substantially more than just a LOOGY. At this point, the latter has to come via trade, but it could/should still happen.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 24 2019 10:46 AM Re: Pollock thread redux

The internet is abuzz that Pollock is gone to the Dodgers. That likely removes a Bryce Harper suitor and maybe puts some other stuff (Joc Pederson) in play. For us, that means get used to the Lagares/Broxton BATTLE FOR THE AGES!

Centerfield Jan 24 2019 10:49 AM Re: Pollock thread redux

I wasn't crazy to get Pollock, but this move hurts because I think this was, realistically, as high as the Mets were going to go. I guess there's time, but the options are thinning.

Centerfield Jan 24 2019 11:16 AM Re: Pollock thread redux

4 years. $50 million are the early reports.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2019 11:50 AM Re: Pollock thread redux

A Boy Named Seo wrote: The internet is abuzz that Pollock is gone to the Dodgers. That likely removes a Bryce Harper suitor and maybe puts some other stuff (Joc Pederson) in play. For us, that means get used to the Lagares/Broxton BATTLE FOR THE AGES! J.D. Davis just called to say he's sick of you bitches leaving him out of the picture. That was his word, not mine. I'm just passing it on.

Johnny Lunchbucket Jan 24 2019 12:46 PM Re: Pollock thread redux

=Centerfield post_id=1747 time=1548353784 user_id=65] 4 years. $50 million are the early reports.

Eh, let him go the Dodgers. We'll just be forced to sign Bryce Harpo now