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.
That's the way I feel, too.
I get it, but listening to BVW yesterday, it almost sounded like Broxton was Lagares insurance, but I could be misinterpreting it.
But, is team better with Machado, or with Lowrie, Familia and Ramos filling three holes? I dont know the answer, no one does. But thats a reality. And its a reality every other team in MLB has decided is the better path, so far...
Don't you love rehashing this discussion?
In my mind it shouldn't have come down to either or.
It should have been the Mets have a need for a middle of the order bat and a long-term solution at 3B.
Machado is a tailor made fit.
Mets need an upgrade at C, Ramos made a ton of sense.
The bullpen needed a major talent infusion, so Familia was a no-brainer.
Do those moves and I'd accept the Cano trade a lot more. Maybe it's the "missing piece" adding Cano and Diaz.
Quote:
talking below average defensively so hold your pitchforks.
I get it, but listening to BVW yesterday, it almost sounded like Broxton was Lagares insurance, but I could be misinterpreting it.
I didn't get that impression at all. He talked up Broxton and they gave up legit value for him. I think they will have close to a straight platoon and if one far outperforms the other so be it. This was more than a flyer on a player. They traded legit young talent (Davis as well).
This is a major concern for me. You need a guy who know how to move guys around and play to the flexibility. Hopefully he figures it out. I think Mickey opens the season on the hot seat.
McNeil can play OF? Very limited if any experience doing it.
- Cesepdes coming back? You can not rely on that.
- Playing Nimmo in CF every day or relying on Lagares/ Broxton? Very iffy.
Not to mention a hole at 1B and relying on a rookie is never a sure thing. There are still a lot of question marks in this lineup ( and the bullpen as well).
Quote:
Mickey is creative and rotates everyone in accordingly. Obviously, McNeil in LF (assuming he can handle it) gets our 8 best bats in the lineup. He really has flexibility to play different matchups now though. Im not really all that confident in Mickey however.
This is a major concern for me. You need a guy who know how to move guys around and play to the flexibility. Hopefully he figures it out. I think Mickey opens the season on the hot seat.
Same. He was actually pretty awful at it last year actually.
Lagares and Broxton will compete in ST, the best guy will start in CF. They don't expect Lagares to stay healthy and put up another 3 fwar season but it could happen. I don't think they expect Broxton to win that competition or be the 20-20 guy he was a few years ago but it could happen.
In the most likely scenario where both of those things don't happen and Mcneil is hitting + has shown he can handle the OF defensively, he will most likely end up getting the majority of the starts in the OF with the CF'ers providing depth and coming in as late game pinch runners/defensive replacements. The reality is Lagares has been too unreliable to even be counted on as a 4th OF'er, which is why Broxton was needed.
Quote:
In comment 14266376 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
if BVW is stupid or playing stupid or neither, but we all know #3 is absolutely legit.
Constraints of our plan = budget
Quote:
Michael Mayer
@mikemayerMMO
Interesting quote from BVW, "Ive never operated this offseason to wait and see if a market dropped. In fact, all of our moves have not been market contingent, theyve been roster contingent how do these players fit? Can we acquire them within the constraints of our plan?
8:13 AM - 17 Jan 2019
In case it hasnt been obvious by now, he likes to target the best player/fit for the team and aggressively target him. Whether its trade or FA. Whether its an overpayor not. I thing preventing him from coming back to the market when it drops. But a hard lesson learned by Somme FO and agents is Brody is very straight forward, will overpay. But the second youve played your cards too hard, hes not just ready but willing to quickly move on. Its certainly a refreshing change of pace.
I don't mind that, but it's kind of hard to look fans in the eye and say Jed Lowrie was a better fit for the Mets than Manny Machado.
Until you add and understand "within the constraints of our plan"
which is what pisses off most Mets fans because it means they don't want to spend on Machado.
Even the Yankees are reticent to spend on Machado. If I can get Cano, Diaz, Familia, Lowrie, and Ramos, I'll take that over one player in Machado and lesser players filling out those other roles. I know Machado is a great bat, but BVW is making a deep team and retaining most of his farm. That's a great thing, IMO.
After the history of terrible free agent, blockbuster signings, Bonilla, Alomar, Matsui, Jason Bay, Luis Castillo, the acquisition of Mo Vaughn (I know they traded for him but they also paid him a lot), and, most recently, Yoenis Cespedes with an asterisk (I mean, he did help us to the World Series), then the huge, roster constraining deals like a Machado and Harper would be make so little sense. I prefer the approach of cost-effective quality players up and down the roster. I think that gives us the best chance to make the World Series again. Manny is a great player, and he may help a team to a World Series title one day. But the law of scarcity is still a thing.
Yes, I would prefer the Mets spend like the Red Sox. But they don't, so maximize the talent with the funds available, and if I look at this off-season through that lens, I have to give BVW an A+. Just make sure McNeil gets his 500 or so ABs.
Given where we are now, I'd like to see Pollack, plus one more BP arm and one more backend of the rotation guy.
My problem is we're probably not getting Pollack and I don't know if we're bringing both a BP arm and another SP.
Hopefully they have more work to do.
I'm one who believes 100% in I'd sacrifice the farm for major league talent, but don't pretend he's doing this without hurting the farm and I don't always support that approach if it's done because the team is hesitant to spend money (sign Kimbrel vs trade for Diaz kind of thing). Who knows, maybe Diaz winds up better, but Kimbrel has a track record and wouldn't have cost Kelenic and Dunn.
And my point, again, is the Mets should not have had to choose between Machado or other improvements.
The Mets should have added Machado, and made the same other improvements (Ramos, Familia, Lowrie if they still wanted, and more).
When you have a player like Machado who costs no draft picks and could be added (in theory) for $25M per season (waiting to see what he signs for), you do it.
I don't care what the Yankees are reticent to do.
Agreed. Plus the other guys we've discussed (Gio, Miley, etc).
Agree here as well - this is where it's most debateable whether or not the $20m on Lowrie was better spent on pitching since Mcneil could have played 3B and they already spent resources dealing for Davis to provide depth. And have Frazier/Alonso. I like Lowrie though and he's been as valuable as just about anyone in FA over the past 2 years though. Would be nice to just be able to afford both.
You can easily replace what was lost in most drafts (except Kelenic) IMO.
Quote:
would have been a nice add. Innings, lefty, really solid pitcher.
Agree here as well - this is where it's most debateable whether or not the $20m on Lowrie was better spent on pitching since Mcneil could have played 3B and they already spent resources dealing for Davis to provide depth. And have Frazier/Alonso. I like Lowrie though and he's been as valuable as just about anyone in FA over the past 2 years though. Would be nice to just be able to afford both.
I think he's a potential steal for someone. (Keuchel).
But, is team better with Machado, or with Lowrie, Familia and Ramos filling three holes? I dont know the answer, no one does. But thats a reality. And its a reality every other team in MLB has decided is the better path, so far...
The team is better with Machado, Familia, and Ramos than with Lowrie, Familia, and Ramos... it's not really even debatable.
That is the problem most Mets fans have. Period.
If you are operating a professional sports team trying to turn an operating profit, you shouldn't own a professional sports team.
After the history of terrible free agent, blockbuster signings, Bonilla, Alomar, Matsui, Jason Bay, Luis Castillo, the acquisition of Mo Vaughn (I know they traded for him but they also paid him a lot), and, most recently, Yoenis Cespedes with an asterisk (I mean, he did help us to the World Series), then the huge, roster constraining deals like a Machado and Harper would be make so little sense.
Bonilla - not a bad signing, look at the numbers
Alomar - that was a trade
Matsui - terrible signing but wasn't that big, never precluded them from anything else
Bay - terrible signing, but one could argue the reason it was so bad was they should have signed Holliday but went cheap
Castillo - trade wasnt terrible; subsequent resigning was suspect but it really wasnt anything that precluded them from doing anything
Beltran and Bonilla are really the only 2 analogies in team history... the 90s Mets weren't on competitiveness doorstep... the 00s Mets were... I'd argue that this Mets team IS.. if now isn't the time to make a huge splash, when is!?
Quote:
The "we should just sign Machado or Harper" argument is fan talk. This is a business. You run it like a business. Expenses matter and while it would be fun to have a bigger payroll, that's not reality.
If you are operating a professional sports team trying to turn an operating profit, you shouldn't own a professional sports team.
Why? Without the profit motive why would anyone be in business, unless you're a charity and even then there is often a personal profit motive.
4 years 25 million. They ate the final year. By fWAR he was worth 14.7 million which means they overpaid by a whopping 11 million over 4 years...
and I agree, long-term contracts are generally something that should be only considered very carefully. In all sports because when they don't work out the impact can be disastrous. Though and not to go off on a tangent, for the Mets, and being a top 10 revenue generating franchise in a big market, they should be able to withstand a failed contract.
But in the Mets case there is/was a perfect match.
Mets had a need offensively and defensively.
And Machado is 26 years old, and doesn't even cost draft picks.
So, if there is ever a time to strongly consider a long-term high dollar contract Machado is it.
in general though I agree, and in the end the path the Mets chose: Cano/Lowrie might work, but I think it has a higher risk of failure than Machado at 3B and McNeil at 2B.
anyway, we've beaten the snot out of this dead horse.
Quote:
In comment 14266626 Csonka said:
Quote:
The "we should just sign Machado or Harper" argument is fan talk. This is a business. You run it like a business. Expenses matter and while it would be fun to have a bigger payroll, that's not reality.
If you are operating a professional sports team trying to turn an operating profit, you shouldn't own a professional sports team.
Why? Without the profit motive why would anyone be in business, unless you're a charity and even then there is often a personal profit motive.
Short answer... status. Just like owning a winery.
But there is also investment opportunity; growing the inherent value of the franchise through break-even operational success.
Notice I said operating profit... meaning from baseball operations... with successful operations comes other possibilities (more lucrative tv/advert deals) and with more league wide success comes more revenue sharing opportunities
I said operating profit.
Yankees baseball operations routinely runs at a loss, yet they are most valuable franchise in baseball.
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.
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.
Teams have long hid inferior defensive players that have plus bats in LF. McNeil has decent wheels, and catching fly balls is not hard. He can hit, which is why he is fine in LF.
The defensive conversation RE: McNeil in LF takes a significant back seat to how his bat plays in the lineup. Plus he'll get plenty of work giving infielders days off.
I'm less concerned with McNeil in left than I am with Nimmo in center. Nimmo can do it, but he's a big drop off defensively from Lagares and probably Broxton.
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.