Curious about what else you guys think the Mets will do before reporting to spring training.
Also, with a bunch of guys who play multiple positions, what do you think their positional depth chart looks like right now?
C: Ramos, TDA
1B: Frazier (until Alonso comes up)
2B: Cano, McNeil
SS: Rosario, Lowrie
3B: Lowrie, Frazier, McNeil
LF: McNeil, Nimmo
CF: Nimmo, Lagares, Broxton
RF: Conforto, Nimmo
About a million different lineup combinations but more importantly lots of good depth. I wonder if they plan on moving Frazier? Having him around without Alonso helps but things get crowded after Alonso arrives.
Quote:
In comment 14266688 DanMetroMan said:
Quote:
Mets paid Alomar 2 years 16 million TOTAL. Big name but far from a blockbuster expenditure. It's like saying if Lowrie is a bust it's yet another "blockbuster" addition that didn't work. Kaz Matsui made 7 million per...and Bonilla jokes aside is one of the best Mets EVER offensively.
I mean, this should all be in context. Bonilla's contract was 5 years for $29 million, and that made him the highest paid player in the league. Yeah you can talk about how Alomar was only $16 million, but at the time that was a huge amount for a 2B. He would've been the highest paid player on about 10 different teams at the time, and was one of the top 50 highest paid players at the time. Context is everything here.
And Bonilla was a bad contract. He hit some, but missed a lot of games, and did not give the Mets what he was paid for, which is why they dumped him. It was a bad deal. What we thought we were getting was a .300 hitter, over 30 homers and over 100 RBIs annually. In '95 the Mets were finally getting what they paid him to do, so they traded him. 1992 sucked though, and he was just hurt too much in subsequent years even though he would hit when healthy. If you're spending significant time on the DL every season and you're the game's highest paid player, that's not a good deal.
All due respect but you're both pointing to context and... contracts as far back as 30 years ago!. Roberto Alomar didn't set back the Mets one iota. The Bonilla Mets teams were awful with or without him. FYI 2002 Mets Alomar's salary was 4th on the team, right ahead of Jeromy Burnitz. Vaughn, Piazza, Leiter all were making more so lets not pretend he was a major salary that killed what they could do. "Top 50" needs context just the same. He was making 7.2 million, A-Rod was making 22 and 23 players were making more than 10 million per.
Yes, and A-Rod aside, it was still a lot of money. Mo Vaughn was what, the third highest salary in baseball in '03 or so?
Sure, a bunch of Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox were making a bunch of money (plus A-Rod), but I don't think that diminishes the point. Blockbuster might've been too strong a word to characterize a couple of those deals, but each one of them were significant deals to the METS team budget and each one of them hurt the Mets competitively.
I prefer what BVW is doing.
Quote:
Mets paid Alomar 2 years 16 million TOTAL. Big name but far from a blockbuster expenditure. It's like saying if Lowrie is a bust it's yet another "blockbuster" addition that didn't work. Kaz Matsui made 7 million per...and Bonilla jokes aside is one of the best Mets EVER offensively.
I mean, this should all be in context. Bonilla's contract was 5 years for $29 million, and that made him the highest paid player in the league. Yeah you can talk about how Alomar was only $16 million, but at the time that was a huge amount for a 2B. He would've been the highest paid player on about 10 different teams at the time, and was one of the top 50 highest paid players at the time. Context is everything here.
And Bonilla was a bad contract. He hit some, but missed a lot of games, and did not give the Mets what he was paid for, which is why they dumped him. It was a bad deal. What we thought we were getting was a .300 hitter, over 30 homers and over 100 RBIs annually. In '95 the Mets were finally getting what they paid him to do, so they traded him. 1992 sucked though, and he was just hurt too much in subsequent years even though he would hit when healthy. If you're spending significant time on the DL every season and you're the game's highest paid player, that's not a good deal.
They didn't dump him... they got top prospects for him and then he went on to legitimately help teams. If the Mets were a good team otherwise, Bonilla maybe puts them over the top.
Look, was he Barry Bonds like they hoped? Absolutely not. But he was hardly a bust and he CERTAINLY should not be any consideration for what the Mets franchise does 27 years later.
Does Carl Crawford scare the Red Sox? Pablo Sandoval?
What about the Yankees with Carl Pavano? Jacoby Ellsbury?
No... they make mistakes, they eat it, they move on.
Quote:
In comment 14266739 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 14266688 DanMetroMan said:
Quote:
Mets paid Alomar 2 years 16 million TOTAL. Big name but far from a blockbuster expenditure. It's like saying if Lowrie is a bust it's yet another "blockbuster" addition that didn't work. Kaz Matsui made 7 million per...and Bonilla jokes aside is one of the best Mets EVER offensively.
I mean, this should all be in context. Bonilla's contract was 5 years for $29 million, and that made him the highest paid player in the league. Yeah you can talk about how Alomar was only $16 million, but at the time that was a huge amount for a 2B. He would've been the highest paid player on about 10 different teams at the time, and was one of the top 50 highest paid players at the time. Context is everything here.
And Bonilla was a bad contract. He hit some, but missed a lot of games, and did not give the Mets what he was paid for, which is why they dumped him. It was a bad deal. What we thought we were getting was a .300 hitter, over 30 homers and over 100 RBIs annually. In '95 the Mets were finally getting what they paid him to do, so they traded him. 1992 sucked though, and he was just hurt too much in subsequent years even though he would hit when healthy. If you're spending significant time on the DL every season and you're the game's highest paid player, that's not a good deal.
All due respect but you're both pointing to context and... contracts as far back as 30 years ago!. Roberto Alomar didn't set back the Mets one iota. The Bonilla Mets teams were awful with or without him. FYI 2002 Mets Alomar's salary was 4th on the team, right ahead of Jeromy Burnitz. Vaughn, Piazza, Leiter all were making more so lets not pretend he was a major salary that killed what they could do. "Top 50" needs context just the same. He was making 7.2 million, A-Rod was making 22 and 23 players were making more than 10 million per.
Yes, and A-Rod aside, it was still a lot of money. Mo Vaughn was what, the third highest salary in baseball in '03 or so?
Sure, a bunch of Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox were making a bunch of money (plus A-Rod), but I don't think that diminishes the point. Blockbuster might've been too strong a word to characterize a couple of those deals, but each one of them were significant deals to the METS team budget and each one of them hurt the Mets competitively.
I prefer what BVW is doing.
I guess I just don't understand how someone wouldn't want BVW to do what he has done AND add Bryce Harper unless they are concerned about the team's finances (and you shouldn't be, they CAN afford it if they want)
You know what... maybe Vaughn and Alomar aren't terrible analogies. They were both 34 when they joined the Mets..
Bryce Harper will be 8 years through a 10 year deal by the time he is their age.
What if the Mets had the opportunity to sign Alomar and Vaughn when they were 26? They would have been IDIOTS not to, no matter the cost.
Now, consider that Alomar and Vaughn are 2 of the worst case examples of superstar player declines at or around age 34...
Unless you nail draft picks or IFA's who are ready to contribute (which does not appear to be the case) the Mets are in this boat every year.
long-term signings (that work out) provide stability and long-term plans.
short-term signings (and injuries) are you wind up with what the Mets have. short-term successes followed by years of futility.
for one, stop half-assing it.
Machado was the not half-assing it approach.
Cano/Lowrie is the half-assing it approach. make motions like you want to be a contender, but you're not willing to go "all in".
no idea how a fan can prefer the half-assed approach.
Half ass is the perfect description of this offseason. I have no idea how any dan can defend owners not spending- especially the Wilpons. They are simply pocketing that money.
It's not necessarily the choice I would make, but like I said I get it. Especially in an offseason where you can get a possible 4-5 fwar player like Lowrie for just $10m per year. In total dollars they are going to pay Lowrie and Cano $50m over the next 2 years ($25m per year). I think it's a pretty fair bet that combined their war will be similar or better than Harper or Machado individually. Again to be clear - not necessarily the choice I would make, just that I get it.
What I don't get is passing on reasonable salaried players at positions of need like Derek Holland (or Gio, or Miley) or some of the fair BP deals that are starting to happen - but that's another story. The half ass part.
I get they pay premiums and a lot has to happen before insurance kicks in, but if the worst case happens (like last year and 2017) the financial impact of Cespedes (generically) should be minor.
the roster impact is bigger because when you have a player like Cespedes penciled in and no one on the farm to replace him, it creates a vacuum when he gets hurt.
Machado is different IMO, but no one is immune to injuries and I don't think you should shy away from giving a LTC to a 26 year old infielder out of fear of injury, otherwise you should pay no one.
Fans talking about extending deGrom and Thor, they're both FAR more risky than Machado (historically positionally speaking)
I get they pay premiums and a lot has to happen before insurance kicks in, but if the worst case happens (like last year and 2017) the financial impact of Cespedes (generically) should be minor.
the roster impact is bigger because when you have a player like Cespedes penciled in and no one on the farm to replace him, it creates a vacuum when he gets hurt.
Machado is different IMO, but no one is immune to injuries and I don't think you should shy away from giving a LTC to a 26 year old infielder out of fear of injury, otherwise you should pay no one.
Fans talking about extending deGrom and Thor, they're both FAR more risky than Machado (historically positionally speaking)
It's all relative. Who knows what Machado or Harper end up getting, but 8 or 10 years is still very long. Even though he was 31 none of us foresaw Cespedes literally hitting his expiration date in year 1 & 2. JDG is probably going to get signed for 5 years and half of the total money Harper/Machado get. Totally agree any pitcher is riskier than any position player, but also harder to find. If JDG was a UFA right now I don't think the Mets would be spending what he's worth on the open market, they are extending him because they have the leverage to do so at a discounted price since they have non-guaranteed years of control.
Harper would be 9 years through a 10 year deal when he is same age Jed is now.
Think about that for a minute.
I can buy fear of Machado's body and work ethic... Can't buy the same with Harper..
Years shouldn't be scary.
Harper would be 9 years through a 10 year deal when he is same age Jed is now.
Think about that for a minute.
I can buy fear of Machado's body and work ethic... Can't buy the same with Harper..
Years shouldn't be scary.
9 years from now is still 9 years from now - a lot can happen regardless of age, though obviously it's better that he's young there's no guarantee he ages the way Lowrie did. Last year he was a pretty big defensive negative even in RF. In comparison to say Beltran entering FA as a CF and A-Rod as a SS, I think there are more risks with both Harper and Machado. My preference would actually go more towards Machado personally.
Meanwhile the Yankees have never won a thing with their "super pen".
Not saying either is right or wrong but I do find it amusing.
- have gone to the playoffs 3/5 years since Rivera retired
- #1 if fwar among relief pitchers over those 5 years by more than 10 fwar (they have 36.5 fwar in those 5 years, closest team is Houston with 26 fwar - our Mets btw are 28th with 10.5fwar)
let's just say agree to disagree and end the argument here. Boston spends just as much as they do and have had multiple years of losing records. Yes the Yankees spend a ridiculous amount of money, but they have a great GM who spends it smartly - and 1 of the areas they have been way ahead of the rest of league in is building a dominant BP. For a long time on back of Rivera's greatness, and since he retired by creating unprecedented depth when the rest of the league decided that it was smarter to save money on the BP bc it's volatile. It hasn't been for the Yankees and it's because they add to their BP every year, even when it seems like they don't need to.
Meanwhile the Yankees have never won a thing with their "super pen".
Not saying either is right or wrong but I do find it amusing.
Tempting as it may be to look at Boston's bullpen as a case of "ignoring" it and thinking they don't need one in some genius, smartest-guy-in-the-room fasion...
It's pretty plainly about money. They are paying Price + Pedroia + PABLO SANDOVAL a hair under $70M in 2019. They're also about a moment away from having their 3 best players (Betts, JD, Sale) out of their control. Those guys make $60M in 2019, and if they want to keep all of them, that $60M probably looks more like $85-90M in 2020.
They definitely deserve credit for what they were able to figure out in the postseason in terms of using SPs in late-game / high leverage with a ton of success.
As it stands now, their bullpen is in the kind of shape that could postentially cost them a division or even a WC spot. That isn't hyperbole. They could be in very real trouble with that bullpen.
Tickled as you are that the Yankees "have never won a thing" with their loaded bullpen approach, the truth is that it's the biggest factor that catapulted them back into relevance 2 years earlier than reasonably anticipated, during a period in which their rotation has been mediocre/shallow to say the least...
When you have money spent all over the roster to those levels you can get away with spending less elsewhere.
Yup, there's not much in our OF depth right now at all. Maybe Consuegra or Valdez step up. Possibly JMM. But it's pretty darn thin.
I'm not a huge believer in Brodey. I've voted for him a few times in the 40s, but that's not exactly singing praises, but I do rank him above Winaker and Kaz due to his upside. I rank Kaz ahead of Winaker too."
Ryder Ryan intrigues me because he at least has some velocity to his fastball and not as much wear and tear on his arm since he was initially a position player in college. He is another of the reasons why I had no problem moving Bobby Wahl.
Quote:
I found Corey Taylor to be underwhelming the few times I've seen him (velocity seems to be overstated) but I'll say this 199.2 career innings 7 homers allowed, pretty impressive. I'm not particularly high on him but with RP's.. who knows? Sometimes you luck into 40 solid innings from some random decent arm and that has value too.
Ryder Ryan intrigues me because he at least has some velocity to his fastball and not as much wear and tear on his arm since he was initially a position player in college. He is another of the reasons why I had no problem moving Bobby Wahl.
Well Ryan is another example of what I'm saying. The Mets haven't been particularly "lucky" in this regard but good teams generally have a guy or 2 pop up and surprise with some quality innings. Does Villines do that? Does Ryan? Does Hanhold? I mean they don't have a future big-time RP (on paper) in the system. Of course a guy like SWR could end up in the pen (he's probably at least 3 years away) or a guy like Santos but the Mets should both be adding legit BP arms (as I've noted I loved Parker at that price) and also hope some of these guys surprise.
- have gone to the playoffs 3/5 years since Rivera retired
- #1 if fwar among relief pitchers over those 5 years by more than 10 fwar (they have 36.5 fwar in those 5 years, closest team is Houston with 26 fwar - our Mets btw are 28th with 10.5fwar)
let's just say agree to disagree and end the argument here. Boston spends just as much as they do and have had multiple years of losing records. Yes the Yankees spend a ridiculous amount of money, but they have a great GM who spends it smartly - and 1 of the areas they have been way ahead of the rest of league in is building a dominant BP. For a long time on back of Rivera's greatness, and since he retired by creating unprecedented depth when the rest of the league decided that it was smarter to save money on the BP bc it's volatile. It hasn't been for the Yankees and it's because they add to their BP every year, even when it seems like they don't need to.
Not a single Yankee fan cares about them winning 84 games. Hell, most Mets fans dont even care that the Mets went to the WS a few years back. It's basically rings or nothing, especially in Yankee world.
But that wasn't my point at all. Of course you need a great closer. But, this new philosophy that a few teams have employed of building super pens, really hasn't paid off in terms of a championship in the modern era yet. Not, the 3-4 closer model anyway. It might some day, but it really hasn't yet. Obviously, there have been champions with good pens, but thats not what Im referring to.
IMO, the Yankees are an ace short of being legitimately taken seriously in the postseason. I think most of their fanbase knows it too. Should they have spent 40 million AAV on relievers, or should they have done everything possible to get a Kluber? I think a Kluber makes them the best team in baseball, not Otto, Britten, ect. But hey.. maybe they finally make a move for a TOR ace anyway. They are the Yankees after all.
Bingo
IMO, the Yankees are an ace short of being legitimately taken seriously in the postseason. I think most of their fanbase knows it too. Should they have spent 40 million AAV on relievers, or should they have done everything possible to get a Kluber? I think a Kluber makes them the best team in baseball, not Otto, Britten, ect. But hey.. maybe they finally make a move for a TOR ace anyway. They are the Yankees after all.
1 has nothing to do with the other since nothing has stopped them from going after Kluber. Not wanting to give up Torres or Andujar is what has stopped them from getting Kluber - not spending on the BP. They haven't signed relievers over elite SP, elite SP just never hit the FA market. They generally go after whoever the best available guys are (Corbin).
Also it's more than a little ridiculous to thumb your nose at a team saying they shouldn't be "legitimately taken seriously" in the postseason when they lost a close series to last year's champion while presumably taking more seriously a franchise that has yet to prove it can even make the playoffs more than once or twice every decade.
Alonso, 24, hit .285/.395/.579 with 36 home runs and 119 RBI in 2018 between Double-A Binghamton and Triple-A Las Vegas.
Alonso leads the list also featuring various first round picks like the Mariners’ Evan White, Rays two-way prospect Brendan McKay, Royals’ Nick Pratto, and Red Sox 2018 first-rounder Triston Casas.
MLB rated Alonso as the prospect among them with the highest power tool with a 60 rating on the 20-80 prospect scale, noting his bat speed and strength, as well as his ability to translate great raw power into game power.
MLB also rated Alonso as the most likely of the group to win the Rookie of the Year award, noting that he has little to prove in the minor leagues. Rays prospect Nathaniel Lowe, Twins prospect Brent Rooker, and Angels prospect Matt Thaiss were all also slated to make their debuts at some point in 2019 by MLB.com.
Link - ( New Window )
Seperately, starting pitchers and starting everyday players are always going to be worth more to a teams chances than relievers. That’s been true since the dawn of time.
Until a team proves they can win a championship by the 3-4 closer method while neglecting the other two key components, it’s really just a fad imo.
Link - ( New Window )
Lol. No
Quote:
The Yanks have ignored their lineup?
Lol. No
The why bring up the Yanks and the strong bullpen they've put together and then alternately suggest no one can win with a strong bullpen and nothing else in the same discussion? It's not like the Yanks rotation is garbage either especially if they Severino straightened out. For the record I am a Mets fan and dislike the Yanks but your assertion that the Yanks can't win with the way their team is setup is laughable.
We are less then a month from the start of spring and once again some of our games biggest starts remain unsigned. Such a shame. It’s seems every day now someone is making up a new analytical tool to devalue players, especially free agents. As fans, why should “value” for your team even be a consideration? It’s not your money, it’s money that players have worked their whole lives to get to that level and be deserving of. Bottom line, fans should want the best players and product on the field for their team. And as players we need to stand strong for what we believe we are worth and continue to fight for the rights we have fought for time and time again.
Is there a player out there who makes you better?? Can you sign him and still be able to make other moves after (ie. It doesn't preclude you from doing anything else)? Then sign the player.
It's not like the NFL where they have a cap yo worry about. You go over the luxury tax thershold a couple years?? Suck it up. Biggest market team to never have paid luxury tax since it's inception.
Are you suggesting that the Yankees don't have an ace? Luis Severino is a great pitcher and a legit ace.
We are less then a month from the start of spring and once again some of our games biggest starts remain unsigned. Such a shame. It’s seems every day now someone is making up a new analytical tool to devalue players, especially free agents. As fans, why should “value” for your team even be a consideration? It’s not your money, it’s money that players have worked their whole lives to get to that level and be deserving of. Bottom line, fans should want the best players and product on the field for their team. And as players we need to stand strong for what we believe we are worth and continue to fight for the rights we have fought for time and time again.
"It’s not your money..."
Hey Evan - who the fuck do you think pays for your salary?!
Quote:
evan.longoria3
We are less then a month from the start of spring and once again some of our games biggest starts remain unsigned. Such a shame. It’s seems every day now someone is making up a new analytical tool to devalue players, especially free agents. As fans, why should “value” for your team even be a consideration? It’s not your money, it’s money that players have worked their whole lives to get to that level and be deserving of. Bottom line, fans should want the best players and product on the field for their team. And as players we need to stand strong for what we believe we are worth and continue to fight for the rights we have fought for time and time again.
"It’s not your money..."
Hey Evan - who the fuck do you think pays for your salary?!
Are prices going up or down for fans? Are profits going up or down for owners?
Severino finished the season with a 2.95 FIP and a 5.7 fWAR and a 10.35 K per 9.
The season before he has a 2.98 ERA, 3.07 FIP, 10.71 k per 9 and. 5.8 fWAR. He has electric stuff and is only 24. He’s a legit ace. Now do I think the Yankees need another SP? Yes I do but Severino will more than likely remain their best SP. If the Yankees added another frontline starter then they would be the favorites to win it all.