|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| New York Post Sports & #8207;@nypostsports 15m15 minutes ago Matt Harvey was a no-show at #Mets mandatory playoff workout, says Sandy Alderson http://nyp.st/1OWiahb |
| Quote: |
| Mike Vorkunov & #8207;@Mike_Vorkunov Sandy on Harvey missing workout: "Until we find out a little more about his absence I prefer not to comment." http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2015/10/mets_matt_harvey_postseason.html#incart_river … #mets |
You felt the need to tell me "what my problem is". Your comments also made little sense. I apologize if I offended you and I certainly don't know you well enough to make the claim I did but if you're going to go after people in these parts, you better have some thicker skin. That's my advice friend. Let's move on to the Dodgers.
I could hold those for you until we get this straightened out.
I'm glad we have him but hes just not a likeable player. Nothing to be pissed about but I'd also bet this isn't the last time he's a distraction.
Dude, come on...damage control. This guys is painfully obsessed with public perception. The ONLY reason he did a 180 and pitched MORE innings than he needed to was because he was getting destroyed. Listen, if you can't see how Matt Harvey is all about Matt Harvey and $$$, then I do t know what to tell you. You can keep defending the guy, as that's your God given right. I'm jus explaining why the dude turns me off. And it has NOTHING to do with the fact that he grew up a Yankee fan. Hell, half the kids his age across the country probably grew up Yankee fans.
True or false? I don't know, I'm not there. But Adam Rubin is and this is what he said.
True or false? I don't know, I'm not there. But Adam Rubin is and this is what he said.
Sounds like an awesome "team first" type of guy.
Like I said, take from it what you will. Obviously, with your Harvey Hard-on (I say in jest) I don't expect you to believe the one reporter who is around the team the most? But then again, you use your reports and tweets to support your own arguments, so we can't be hypocritical here. With Harvey's persona, I think these reports are quite believable. But that's just me.
Quote:
His money second, and the team third when he is blowing past his inning restrictions and demanding to pitch in the postseason?? Even in a meaningless game his last time out he demanded to get to 100 pitches so he is ready for the postseason??? Was that protecting his arm and his asset?? Actions speak louder than words and regardless of what was said when the Boras stuff was coming out, Harvey is PROVING the team comes first. How many guys in today's game do what Harvey's doing? He's damn near been heroic.
Dude, come on...damage control. This guys is painfully obsessed with public perception. The ONLY reason he did a 180 and pitched MORE innings than he needed to was because he was getting destroyed. Listen, if you can't see how Matt Harvey is all about Matt Harvey and $$$, then I do t know what to tell you. You can keep defending the guy, as that's your God given right. I'm jus explaining why the dude turns me off. And it has NOTHING to do with the fact that he grew up a Yankee fan. Hell, half the kids his age across the country probably grew up Yankee fans.
I get your side I just don't view it that way. I'm sorry, but even Dan and others would have said back in April that if Harvey pitched past 200 innings a year after Tommy John it would have been extremely risky. The guy has said all along he wants to pitch. He never did a 180 and he's proving it on the field now by pitching. You don't put 200 million dollars on the line and your future health because your worried about peer pressure and what the public thinks. It takes more than that, sorry.
Agree 1000%. I've said that before as well.
Quote:
Maybe that's just rookie hazing type stuff. I don't know but that seems like a lot of conjecture and heresay. If your going to say he did something, say it. Don't say you think a lot of guys don't like him, ect. We all have eyes in our heads and see the interactions on TV. DeGrom and Harvey are always around each other laughing, ect. Give me a break with that crap.
Like I said, take from it what you will. Obviously, with your Harvey Hard-on (I say in jest) I don't expect you to believe the one reporter who is around the team the most? But then again, you use your reports and tweets to support your own arguments, so we can't be hypocritical here. With Harvey's persona, I think these reports are quite believable. But that's just me.
Believe what though? Conjecture in the locker room? What did the reporter say? That Harvey's been razzing Syndergaard? I'm all for people presenting opposing facts but is this really a good example here?
Quote:
In comment 12534885 ZGiants98 said:
Quote:
Maybe that's just rookie hazing type stuff. I don't know but that seems like a lot of conjecture and heresay. If your going to say he did something, say it. Don't say you think a lot of guys don't like him, ect. We all have eyes in our heads and see the interactions on TV. DeGrom and Harvey are always around each other laughing, ect. Give me a break with that crap.
Like I said, take from it what you will. Obviously, with your Harvey Hard-on (I say in jest) I don't expect you to believe the one reporter who is around the team the most? But then again, you use your reports and tweets to support your own arguments, so we can't be hypocritical here. With Harvey's persona, I think these reports are quite believable. But that's just me.
Believe what though? Conjecture in the locker room? What did the reporter say? That Harvey's been razzing Syndergaard? I'm all for people presenting opposing facts but is this really a good example here?
You can twist it around anyway you want. You know what it means.
Heading to a meeting but it's clears we are on different sides on this one. No need to continue to belabor the point.
I actually think most of us expected to be in the wild card mix this year at least. I know Sandy set 90 wins as a realistic goal in 2015 opposed to a motivational tool in 2014. I'd say he was pretty close. Either way all good. Have a good meeting.
look at the predictions, almost everyone was mid to high 80's and 2014 WC was like 88 wins.
so I think we all expected/hoped we'd be in WC contention.
As it turns out they weren't in WC contention really the Cubs and Pirates crushed it, but the 90 wins exceeded most expectations and fortunately was good enough for the division.
Huh? Matz is 24, Thor is 23. Matz is a whopping 15 months older than Thor
Quote:
Harvey, Matz, and deGrom should have never been viewed as guys your going to give a long term contract to. They broke into baseball too late. Syndergaard is the only pitcher young enough where a long term deal might seem prudent when it's time.
Huh? Matz is 24, Thor is 23. Matz is a whopping 15 months older than Thor
Well first I just excluded Thor. Matz still has 5-6 years of control left. Not sure why your not making the connection. DeGrom will be 32!
think about it, if I'm correct, you need 6 years of service time to become a free agent.
so if you were 24 or 25 when you were a rookie, you're 30 or 31 when you hit free agency.
more often then not, if you're a front of the rotation starter at that time you get a mega deal and way overpaid.
so, think about it, if you could buy only that 31 or 32 year old season, before age and injury creeps in, you do it.
but agents and players know this too, so the trade-off is the security of guaranteed money from 24 - 25 to 31/32 that usually sets them up for life, but at the same time doesn't create an albatross.
I'd do it if I were any of those guys, especially deGrom, Harvey and Matz who have all had TJ already. Thor will be younger and hasn't yet so he might not be so inclined, but I'd try with him too.
think about it, if I'm correct, you need 6 years of service time to become a free agent.
so if you were 24 or 25 when you were a rookie, you're 30 or 31 when you hit free agency.
more often then not, if you're a front of the rotation starter at that time you get a mega deal and way overpaid.
so, think about it, if you could buy only that 31 or 32 year old season, before age and injury creeps in, you do it.
but agents and players know this too, so the trade-off is the security of guaranteed money from 24 - 25 to 31/32 that usually sets them up for life, but at the same time doesn't create an albatross.
I'd do it if I were any of those guys, especially deGrom, Harvey and Matz who have all had TJ already. Thor will be younger and hasn't yet so he might not be so inclined, but I'd try with him too.
With starting pitching it's bad for both sides. Not saying teams don't do it but what kind of pitcher will deGrom be at 33? Will he even be throwing 91 mph then? Too risky planning out how he'll be able to perform 6 years down the road. For the player, if your really good, you likely only get one shot at a big pay day. You don't want to extend into your prime further and completely miss out on your only shot. It's just not prudent for either side.
you get cost control.
of course the player could crap the bed and then it's not great, but normally even the Jon Niese's hang around through their arbitration years. so use him as your benchmark (though worse pitchers have), you'd be betting Harvey, Matz, or deGrom become no worse than Niese.
For the player, you're getting guaranteed what 30M - 40M? that's generational money, you are literally set for life.
if you say yeah, but that 40M comes at the cost of one year's time before you get a 140M that's the risk you take.
Just my 2c. It's why you see a lot of teams lock up young talent.
it does not always work out, but I think the risk is deemed worth it.
We agree here. It works out well for younger players and especially younger position players. Starting pitching flamethrowers breaking into the league in their mid-20s and under control for 6 more years would be huge risks to extend.
this has been done successfully with:
Felix Hernandez
Justin Verlander
Jon Lester
Cole Hamels
Yovanni Gollardo
and unsuccessfully with some players, but that's the risk.
I am guessing you guys don't understand what I'm saying and why it makes sense. there are no big deals. and you're paying them already anyway. which big bats should they sign? The Lagares contract already looks like a mistake. I think they got lucky Duda didn't sign his offer?
Who do you mean? Conforto?
Cespedes? Obviously we all agree on Cespedes.
Insurance mitigates that. Even college players get it. Dickey turned down that $1 million payout a decade ago when they found his arm issue.
I would work something out with Murphy, but it ideally would be less than the QO, which scares me. Offering Murphy 16.5M seems asinine regardless of what fangraphs says he's worth and despite the fact no player in history has yet to accept the QO. I feel like you should be able to replace Murphy with a pre-arb guy like Herrera for a fraction of the price and better all around production.
If Murphy signs a 2 year 16M deal or 3 year 20M deal to be a utility guy I'd be ok. more money than the QO, but spread over a few years.
Quote:
In comment 12534930 ZGiants98 said:
Quote:
Harvey, Matz, and deGrom should have never been viewed as guys your going to give a long term contract to. They broke into baseball too late. Syndergaard is the only pitcher young enough where a long term deal might seem prudent when it's time.
Huh? Matz is 24, Thor is 23. Matz is a whopping 15 months older than Thor
Well first I just excluded Thor. Matz still has 5-6 years of control left. Not sure why your not making the connection. DeGrom will be 32!
The point is they are close in age. Yes, Thor has had his clock start sooner than Matz. But most pitchers don't start until their early 20's, so all of them would be "too old" for long term deals by the time they are FA.
As others have said - you buy out the arbitration/FA years for a long term deal.
I am not convinced you get that from him next season and I don't want them sacrificing offense while they have the pitching staff to win championships. Two years ago absolutely but I think Herrera is still a real gamble at this point. If he doesn't preform close to Murphy's level and DW again goes down for any length of time they are going backwards at the wrong point in time for the franchise.
Quote:
In comment 12534959 speedywheels said:
Quote:
In comment 12534930 ZGiants98 said:
Quote:
Harvey, Matz, and deGrom should have never been viewed as guys your going to give a long term contract to. They broke into baseball too late. Syndergaard is the only pitcher young enough where a long term deal might seem prudent when it's time.
Huh? Matz is 24, Thor is 23. Matz is a whopping 15 months older than Thor
Well first I just excluded Thor. Matz still has 5-6 years of control left. Not sure why your not making the connection. DeGrom will be 32!
The point is they are close in age. Yes, Thor has had his clock start sooner than Matz. But most pitchers don't start until their early 20's, so all of them would be "too old" for long term deals by the time they are FA.
As others have said - you buy out the arbitration/FA years for a long term deal.
It's the long term deal part that's off. Pj is suggesting buying up all the arbitration years in return for 1single option year like we did with Lagares. Something like that MAY happen but it's highly unlikely a pitcher of Thors caliber is going to extend out 2-4 years like some of you seem to be insinuating.
It's the long term deal part that's off. Pj is suggesting buying up all the arbitration years in return for 1single option year like we did with Lagares. Something like that MAY happen but it's highly unlikely a pitcher of Thors caliber is going to extend out 2-4 years like some of you seem to be insinuating.
Extensions happen all the time.