Cuts & Keepers: The Cash for Clunkers; Freddie Coupons Edition!
The Wilpon's are "victims" of tough economic times and of the Bernie Madoff scandal. They are "strapped for cash" in the sense that they may need to actually CONSIDER stepping down from being MEGA RICH to only SUPER RICH. So, from the generosity of my heart, I am here to offer some suggestions to the Wilpon's of how to get the most value out of their junk. Sound familiar? This is just Cash for Clunkers, but with a Metsy twist! Keeping in tradition of catching propaganda-friendly names, I'm calling it Cuts & Keepers. It's just as obvious as it sounds, folks! I first suggest players that the Mets should cut, with reasons next to their names, and I then suggest some keepers! Yay!
(also, to qualify for this bargain, you have to be a Met by the end of September 2009, and your salary has to be under $5 million a year!)
CUTS:
Jeff Francoeur - I really dislike Francoeur. Francoeur represents everything baseball shouldn't be (or, what the teams the Mets play SHOULD be)/ He swings at everything, his OBP is worse than Luis Castillo's batting average, and home runs to him are simply "rally-killers." Despite his suprising turn for the better after coming to the Mets, it seems Jeff Francoeur is as valuable to the Mets as Bear Stearns' portfolio. But the biggest part about Francoeur I hate is his big, ugly pricetag. This year, he's earning $3.375 million, which is a little over $6 million too much according to fangraphs. The Mets/Braves should be CHARGING HIM FOR PLAYING TIME! Let's non-tender and/of trade this guy and be done with him.
John Maine - Although I like him as a person and as a fun pitcher to watch, John Maine has no place in the Freddie Coupon's universe, and really in mine. Maine ends up taking a rotation spot and is guaranteed to get hurt somewhere down the line. And frankly, Maine is a middle of the rotation pitcher at best, and he dreams to be as good as Mike Pelfrey in FIP. Now in a normal situation, I would probably try him out in a setup role to bolster the bullpen, but frankly in this Wilpon Economic Time his $2.6 million for 2009, and the possbility (probability) of more is too much.
Brian Schneider - Schneider combines an injury risk and lack of performance to make the perfect cocktail of "No Thank You." His ludicrous $4.9 million price tag for 2009 is already a tax on the budget, but also his negative $300,000 value for this year is rather alarming. Whether he settles for less or not (he will), I think a new face in New York and new scenery for Schneidly is good for both sides. Schneider was actually a solid acquisition from the brass, especially when paired with Ryan Church in exchange for Blastings, but now his time has come, and I'm ready to chant "Tholeeee, TholeTholeTholeeeeee, Tholeeeee, Tholeeeee."
Tim Redding - If I wanted ipecac, I'd get it at the pharmacy for $15. I wouldn't spend $2.25 million for a year's supply!
Alex Cora - I don't know why we signed him for $2 million this year, but I sure as hell want him outta here ASAP.
Jeremy Reed - We already have too much outfield depth to deal with another near-million dollar salary. Reed was costing us $925,000 in 2009, and will cost nothing to the Mets in 2010 when he's on another team.
More Cuts:
Ramon Martinez: $750,000 in 2009
Elmer Dessens: $600,000 in 2009
Brandon Knight: $404,000 in 2009
Lance Broadway: $403,000 in 2009
Overall cost of Cuts in 2009: approximately $18.3 million
Overall value: $-5.6 million (yes, NEGATIVE $5.6 million)
Keepers!!
Angel Pagan - Besides Biggie Smalls, Angel Pagan is just about my favorite oxymoron on the planet, and with good reason. Pagan is a blessing at the plate (wOBA of .330 in 2008, .357 in 2009) and in the field (in 278 career innings in right, his UZR is 4.5!!! THATS 18.7 UZR/150!!!). Plus, Pagan should be kept at a contract under $1 million in 2010, considering he made about $570,000 in 2009. I want Pagan as my starting right fielder, I don't know about you guys!
Cory Sullivan - Sully is a valuable pinch hitter and good defender. He made $600,000 in 2009, and I can't imagine he'd ask for much more, especially if he's offered a spot on the MLB roster. Sully's already proved that he's worth double that! Sullivan is pretty much the quintessential fourth outfielder, and considering our messy situation in right (we have candidates extending across the board from Pagan to Evans to Martinez to Murphy), Sully will at the very least serve to be an effective stopgap.
Anderson Hernandez - Although in his first time around with the Mets A-Hern was rather barf-worthy, he has proven that he can hit over .150 over the past 2 years. He still really isn't much of a hitter -- he has no pop and doesn't walk much -- but he can hit enough to justify having as a defensive MI backup, and when he begins making good contact, he can actually inflate his OBP quite a bit. Considering we're cutting budget, it's nice to know there's a good defender on the team for as low a price as he comes. Especially when he only earned $400,000 in 2009.
Daniel Murphy - I know his 97 OPS+ is not exactly worthy of a Silver Slugger award, but Murphy is still a young'n and should be given the opportunity to rebound next year at first base. If the Mets want to make big upgrades (Matt Holliday....) they can't continuously sign $2-5 million players like they did last year, and we can survive with Murphy hitting eighth in the lineup. After making $401,000 in 2009, he's the most affordable option we have and we can't really do much else. Also, considering this is just his first full season, there is always the possibility that he will do better next year.
Fernando Tatis - He's the most expensive player on this keepers list, but he's probably the mos valuable as well. Tatis still has a great bat and over the past 2 years has shown that in his 630 PAs, he's been worth $10.2 million. Tatis has very good defense at first base, second base and in the corner outfield positions, and with his bat he's way too valuable to lose. He signed for $1.7 million last year, and I'm willing to be he's ready to sign the same contract again. He should be getting more at-bats this year, posssibly as a platoon man for Daniel Murphy, fill in for Luis Castillo or replacement for an ineffective Angel Pagan. Tatis is too good not to keep.
Fernando Nieve - He was never exactly an overproducer in his limited time in the bigs but Nieve and his mid-90s fastball could find some use in the Mets' bullpen. Fernando may not be striking out as many as he usually does but is taking advantage of Citifield's wide dimensions as his homer rate is drastically lowered. He shouldn't earn much more than the $414,000 he signed for in 2009, and could be a huge bullpen sleeper.
Pat Misch - Misch makes both a good LOOGY and spot starter, and with the questionable rotation the Mets have going into next year he could prove his worth exponentially. He's never really been given much of a shot but could be a great player for the Mets to have on the roster come Opening Day. He earned $401,250 this year and should be available at the same price.
Omir Santos - He's no Ramon Castro, but at the very least Omir makes a good case as a catcher. His .298 wOBA isn't attractive compared to the other hitters out there, but compare him to other CATCHERS and all of the sudden he's golden. Santos has proven in his time that he's been worth $4 million to the Mets this year, showing that at the pennies he's costing the team (he's earning at the most $390,000 this year) Santos is more than just a AAAA player, but a viable MLB catcher who should be part of a Mets platoon catcher system in 2010.
Overall cost of Keeprs in 2009: $4.5 million
Overall value of Keepers in 2009: $17.7 million
This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.
82 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This makes some interesting points.
But I’m sick of articles, ads, media, etc. continually referencing “Cash for Clunkers” or making a riff on it. We get it, it’s a government program with a funny name.
/rant.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
Money you give people to create 70s era music groups is called
cash for funkers.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
The Shaquille O'Neal Relief Fund
aka “Cash for Dunkers”
The money set aside by the Mythbusters for their mythbusting?
Cash for debunkers.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
This one's a stretch
the newspaper headline after the first time the Chili Peppers broke up:
“Clash for Junkies”
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 7, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Money for LA street dancers
is cash for crunkers.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Sep 7, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Money for cute woodland creatures is called
Cash for Chipmunk-ers…
shrug.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
The Military Hole-Digging Budget
Cash for Bunkers
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 8, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Money for Pirates with sunken ships
Cash for Sunk-ers
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
The Renaissance-era charity for alcoholics
Cash for Drunkards
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 8, 2009 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions
The medical fund for people who run into walls and doors
Cash for Thunkers
by BobbyV_Incognito on Sep 8, 2009 1:38 AM EDT up reply actions
The charity work to help cash strapped sitcom families in the 50s
Cash for Archie Bunkers.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
The treasury of the Tony Shaloub Fan Club
Cash for Monkers
by BobbyV_Incognito on Sep 8, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions
The fund established to allow piercings for underprivileged rock fans.
Cash for Punkers.
*By the way, I love Tony Shaloub.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
The Government Economic Relief Program
for Car Owners that would buy cars in any condition from $3000-$4500
Cash for Clunkers
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 8, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions
The for bailing dutch noblemen out of jail
cash for jonkers
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage
by blueandorange4life on Sep 9, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions
*the fund for
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage
by blueandorange4life on Sep 9, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
The fund for helping the poor in an Asian nation
Cash for Sri Lankers
Just know, if there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
Pepe LePeau's college tuition
Cash for Skunkers.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
Monetary reward for the pitcher with the most hitsbatmen
Cash for Plunkers
Just know, if there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
Cash for food for fat people.
Cash for Chunkers.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
Money for Quill pen makers
Cash for Pluckers.
Just know, if there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
Fincancial Relief
for the average Ben N Jerry’s customer
Cash for Chunkers
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 10, 2009 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Money for grammar fans
cash for Strunkers? Seriously, I’m starting run out of ideas.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Sep 10, 2009 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Money for a hilarious Baltimore homicide detective
Cash for the Bunk-ers
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
Money for nose jobs
Cash for Honkers.
Just know, if there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
Or money for breast implants
Cash for honkers.
Double meaning!
Just know, if there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.
Money for the guy hanging outside your liquor store
Cash for plonkers.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Sep 10, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Money for people in the recreational sport of exploring caves
Cash for spelunkers
"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."
Aid for those who have trouble cleaning out their eyes
Cash for Gunkers
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 11, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm with you on a number of these
But I think its time to ditch Sullivan and Tatis. If your premise that they’re both good defenders were true, they’d be acceptable players, but they’re not. Sullivan’s career UZR/150 in the outfield is -7.9, and though he’s been adequate in the corners for the most part, he’s not a center fielder. He’s managed a -1.8 UZR in CF this year in just 6 games according to fangraphs, a feat difficult to pull off if you’re trying, and he’s -12.0 UZR/150 for his career in CF. His offensive ability is redundant to Pagan, or any other fourth outfielder you might find. Pass. He wasn’t even worth the $600k they gave him.
The idea of starting Pagan in RF really isn’t that crazy, but I also don’t think it would be that crazy to set your sights higher, and/or hope that Fernando Martinez (or maybe Ike Davis if the Mets sign a 1B) could relegate him to the role of “New Endy”.
As for Tatis, its a bit closer. He’s also a pretty crappy defender, at least according to UZR. He’s a miserable defensive infielder except at first base, and he can handle an outfield corner adequately enough. But with Nick Evans around, I’m just not sure offering Tatis any reasonable sum of money makes sense. What he is worth at this point is an arbitration offer, as a projected Type B.
The issue is, if you’re starting your bench with Santos, Pagan, and Evans, that’s only two more spots to find a backup middle infielder and (preferably) a left handed hitter to provide some versatility and offensive value off the bench. Tatis and Sullivan just don’t qualify. It would be nice to make Daniel Murphy the latter in this case, though. Anderson Hernandez would be fine in the former as well. If Pagan’s your starting RF, things are a bit different, but I still think you can find a better fourth outfielder than Sullivan and a similar cost.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Sep 7, 2009 12:57 PM EDT reply actions
Sully
I was thinking of him as more of a corner outfielder. I’d think we don’t really need a backup centerfielder, as in Beltran’s days off we could move Pagan to center and have Sully in right. And in the corners Sully is more than enough defensively.
On Tatis, I think there are a million and one ways we could make good use of him, both as a platoon player for Murphy (4.2 career UZR/150 at first is actually better than Murph’s defensive performance this year) and his outfielding abilities in the corners are adequate as well (1.1 UZR/150 for his career). Also his bat is well worth it. He’s already proven his value ($3.1 million in value this year according to Fangraphs, and that’s for half a season’s worth of at-bats), and although he is a Type B the Mets should have enough classified free agents to compensate for that (Schneider, Putz, Delgado….)
Also with Pagan I think he would make an adequate rightfielder at least. His defense in the corners is very good and he’s proven with the bat that he’s worth a shot. In his limited career at-bats Pagan’s posted a solid .330 wOBA and has shown more that he is more than capable in the outfield. Combine that with this year’s performance and I think he’s worth a starting spot in the Opening Day roster next year — Of course F! could replace him but for the time being I’m not liking F! on Opening Day.
I agree with you on Pagan
I don’t see any way he’s not on the team next year, and he could be a very adequate starter. If you add a better hitter for left, he’s solid. I just don’t really see why you can’t do better than Tatis and Pagan. Evans and Tatis seem pretty redundant, but Evans is younger, cheaper, and a better fit as a platoon hitter. Tatis is a bit more passable vs. RHP, but they play pretty much the same positions (no, I don’t think Tatis is a useful infielder outside of 1B) and serve similar functions as bench players. And as for Sullivan, aside from his hot few weeks he’s had lately, he’s pretty much been a replacement level player. Its worth it to spend a little extra and try and buy yourself 1 WAR out of your fourth outfielder. ::Sigh:: I miss Endy.
How much do you think guys like Andruw Jones and Rocco Baldelli will cost this offseason? I actually think pairing them up as part time players and adding both to the roster would be pretty brilliant, assuming they don’t cost too much. Seems hard to believe either would command a couple million. That gives you two pretty solid options for the last outfield spot every day, plus an option to supplement Pagan in RF if he reverts towards his minor league track record and someone to help rest Beltran’s aching knee. Plus, the defense would be very solid every day.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Sep 7, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Oops
Don’t see why you couldn’t do better than Tatis and Sullivan*
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Sep 7, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
There there
we all miss Endy dearly.
Anyways overall I don’t think Evans vs. Tatis is a credible argument. Tatis is just overall a better hitter, a better defender (even if he isn’t a credible infielder), and more worth anyone’s time than Evans.
Also on Jones and Baldelli, Jones will definitely command at least a couple million dollars. He may only be hitting .220, but he was never getting paid to hit for average. Jones got his dollars through power and fielding, and now that he’s proven that he has some (even with the the park’s help) he’s going to get a nice sum of cash. In terms of Baldelli, I think he’d want to know that he’d be competing for a starting job, and I don’t think I’d want to keep Pagan, put him on the bench Opening Day, and then in May hand him the job. He’s not a prospect anymore and I shouldn’t think he still wants to be treated like one. It sounds corny but it’s true.
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 7, 2009 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah that's true
I mean to say seems unlikely either would command more than a couple million.
Also, how is putting a player on the bench as a reserve for opening day with the understanding that he’ll have a shot to play everyday treating them like a prospect? Typically, the philosophy is not to put prospects on the bench. I really could care less how the player feels. Pagan may be good enough to start, but he’s not so great that limiting his playing time would be a bad thing, assuming there are options that are at least as good or better.
If Baldelli and Jones cost around $5-6 mil combined at max, I think targeting both is a pretty solid idea, and telling them that they’ll be competing with Pagan for two spots in the outfield. That’s probably about as weak as Baldelli’s going to get in terms of competition for playing time (not that either Jones or Pagan are bad, but two spots, three decent but unspectacular players). Then you can ditch Francoeur and reasonably expect 6+ WAR combined out of your second, third, and fourth outfielders. Plus you have no worries about outfield defense, and create some relatively sustainable depth with legit prospects like Fernando and Davis in Triple-A. Four more bench seats, one goes to a catcher, one goes to a middle infielder, and the last two can both go to bats. With all the right handed hitters, I can see an argument for Tatis over Evans, since you don’t really need a platoon right hander. What you’d really need to find is a left handed hitter who can mix into the outfield occasionally and take some hacks as a PH.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Sep 15, 2009 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
The other thing about the outfield
Is that Beltran is going to need rest. Even if he’s healthy, the days of him starting 150+ games per year are probably over given his knee problem. So lets say you assume he starts 135. That’s 27 CF starts to account for, 162 LF starts, and 162 RF starts, a total of 351 starts. Dividing that among three players (Pagan, Baldelli, Jones) is an average of 127 starts per person. I don’t see how Jones or Baldelli would have a problem with that given the stages they’re both at in their respective careers, and it would be well worth paying them a few million for that kind of expectation.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Sep 15, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Whoops
117 starts per, not 127
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Sep 15, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
From a player's standpoint
The only person who benefits from this is Baldelli, Baldelli has had 210 at-bats over the past two years and is extremely injury prone. He’s is a solid bat but due to his health is maybe worth a million. I’d consider putting him at DH if we were in the AL.
As for Jones, he may not be a superstar but he has made at least $10 million since 2002, and it’s been well understood that he doesn’t hit for average. Considering his overall abilities I’d say he gets $5 million at least for 2010, and at a place where he’ll get a full season’s worth of playing time in the outfield. I’m sure he’s sick of DHing at this point when he’s the game’s best fielding CF.
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 16, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
In addition to that
Having Jones, Pagan and Baldelli between LF and RF means that we don’t have Holliday, and this would suck as Holliday kicks serious ass.
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 16, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Haha, can't argue with that last one
I do think Holliday is going to be a solid value, but this is all under the assumption that spending is going to be limited. If the Mets are ready to make a big purchase though, Holliday should absolutely be at the top of the list.
As for Jones, you may be right about there being a team willing to offer Jones $5 million and a full time gig, but I don’t think that’s a sure thing at all. It doesn’t matter what he’s made the last few years, all that matters is what the market is willing to offer him. Teams are starting to better understand the inherent value of defense, but before this year, Andruw had two absolutely abysmal offensive seasons, to the point where he wasn’t even a valuable player with stellar defense. He has surged back a bit this year, but not to the point where I think teams can/should be willing to expect his .346 wOBA as a baseline level of production, especially considering he won’t even be getting 400 PAs this year. If your assumption is that you can and do Baldelli is getting $1 million, I think Jones is a worthwhile buy at $4 million, which may even be an overpay.
As for Baldelli, his injury situation was a fairly unique one. I’m not sure it can be said that its clear he’s healthy enough to be capable of a full time player, but sticking him at DH would be a waste, as he’s still a very capable defender. I don’t think he’s any more of a risk playing every day than Jones is, at least given my limited medical understanding.
I think both of these guys, as well as Pagan, look like exactly the kinds of “supporting players” the team has lacked during the Omar regime. Low cost, positive value, non-stars. It leaves you open to spend money on arms and on first base, and assuming Ike Davis can play the outfield, doesn’t block any potential offensive upside that might force itself into the discussion from the upper minors. Collapsing that kind outfield depth, a knack the Mets have had the last few years, would be very difficult.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Sep 16, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions
If anything
We had too MANY of those. We had Ryan Church, Luis Castillo, Bri-Schnei, Mr. Murphy, Maine and Perez.
I think we put ourselves under the illusion that getting players who are less of a guarantee to be successful is a good thing because they are more cost-efficient, and then label them as “supporting players.” Basically “supporting players” is just a euphemism for “kinda OK players with significant downside”
but back ot the Jones argument. Even after his terrible season with Atlanta, he was still able to finagle a 2 year $36 million contract when it was clear that he was only a shadow of his former self. With him finally on the rebound it’s more than conceivable that he get a fraction of that at the least.
And once again, having Jones would likely mean no Holliday, and that makes me have a frowny face :(
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 16, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions
If anything
we had the exact opposite problem: too few of those guys. Castillo and Perez aren’t “low-cost”; they’re pretty expensive. They’re not making superstar money, but they’re both signed to contracts that are definitely too big. The kinds of players Meddler’s talking about cost <$4-5 million. Supporting players don’t necessarily have significant downside to be affordable.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Sep 16, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
In no way is Cory Sullivan a major league baseball player.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
I really like sully as a backup corner outfielder
he doesnt get much love around here, but he puts up respectable numbers for a backup, and I don’t totally buy his UZR numbers being as low as they are since they almost always have played him shaded towards center to cover extra ground for pagan, which hurts his range numbers because he doesn’t get to some balls in his zone towards the lines. And the pricetag on him will be very reasonable.
I think Pagan should be part of our outfield, but never in center. He just isn’t cut out for it, but in right or left i’d be perfectly happy with him as a starter next year.
Tatis can get sent packing for all I care. I dont think he really lends much to the team despite his apparent positive value on fangraphs.
by KeithsMoustache on Sep 11, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
I think Maine is going to be good if he is healthy
I know it’s a tough sell because who knows if he’s going to be healthy but it didn’t sound like he had structural damage and he is beginning rehab. His fastball was at 91.5 MPH this year even when injured which is basically what it has been for his career, so that’s a good sign. I think he can be a 2 WAR pitcher which is worth approx. 9 million so I would keep him but I understand others concerns.
Yes
It’s a matter of risk reward. For the money he’ll be paid, the chance that he’ll be worth a lot more than that is worth the risk.
by TheBigStapler on Sep 10, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions
The sheer dollars
make it worth it. but an entire rotation spot?
We all know Santana, Pelfrey and Perez are part of the rotation next year, and we need another #2.
So that’s 4 spots lined up, and then we’d have an injury-prone, expensive John Maine clogging up Jon Niese’s spot while he could be dealt for a good return. Also Maine doesn’t have the command or durability to do any better than 2008.
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 10, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Except right now we wouldn't get a good return
because Maine’s value is probably at its lowest right now, unless he is light’s out in however many starts he makes before the end of the season. As for Niese, i love the guy’s talent, but he’s coming off a torn hamstring and we don’t know how good he’ll be. If it shakes out in the spring that Niese deserves it more, then so be it, but for now Maine’s upside is worth the risk
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage
by blueandorange4life on Sep 11, 2009 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions
We'd get a decent return
and honestly the focus of the trade isn’t the return necessarily but the clearing of roster and budget space. Maine is a luxury really. He’s a kinda young, mediocre pitcher who would be great if he didn’t have command problems, and also he’s often injured. Over the past 2 seasons he’s made 36 starts and his FIP at his best is 4.18 (you can usually expect it between 4.40 and 4.80). Although Niese IS coming off the hamstring injury, I’m much more ready to rely on him and clear $3 million out of our budget to spend on players that could significantly help the team. IF we are keeping Maine, it’d be in a bullpen role, and that would probably diminish his value more.
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 11, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I would rather rely on Niese
but if, IF, we get rid of Maine, it can’t be just for a salary dump, especially given what we got for the last one. If we’re gonna trade him we should at least try to get something worthwhile out of him. And everything you said about Maine just makes it seem less likely that someone would be interested.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage
by blueandorange4life on Sep 12, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions
no point trading him for the sake of trading him.
he’d actually be GOOD #5 depth.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
Honestly
he does have value and teams recognize that but with our rotation being rather shitty and our budget tight he’s a luxury that we can’t afford. I think there are plenty of teams willing to deal a solid prospect or two to a acquire him.
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 12, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
If he wasn't making at least $2 mil next year
I’d say keep him and try him in the bullpen, and stretch him for a couple weeks in the minors out if/when an extra starter is needed. But its probably just not worth it at that price.
There’s a kind of creative gamble the club could consider taking here though. How about you low-ball him with a multi-year offer? He knows he’s been injured, if he gets hurt for a extended period next year he’s almost certainly getting non-tendered and winding up on a minor league deal for 2011. So what about offering him like, three years and $3.6 million. He gets the security of a seven figure salary through 2012. The Mets invest a bit of extra risk, but the total figure is only $1 million more than he made this year, and given that its spread out over 486 games instead of 162, they can afford to try an experiment like a bullpen shift. Even if you leave him the rotation, the payoff is such a high value that its not a terrible idea. If he starts 75 games and has a 4.50 FIP over that time, you’ve gotten great value. If he throws 180 innings in the pen with a 4.00 FIP, you’ve gotten very decent value.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Sep 15, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't see how
he would take that deal. He didn’t pitch horrendous enough to get a salary demotion while still arb-eligible, so he’s pretty much guaranteed $3 million for 2010 only. Maine also considers himself a decent ballplayer and it would be borderline retardation for him to settle for $1.2 million a year at ages 29, 30, and 31 when he already made $2.6 million at 28, with a guarantee of $3 million in his first year of those three.
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 16, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
He might take that deal
considering how much he’s been injured these 2 seasons now. It’s doubtful he’d get much more in the open market, and even if he did, it’d be a one year deal. Meddler’s idea would give Maine some security, while providing the Mets with a high-risk, low-cost investment.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Sep 16, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
It just doesn't make any financial sense
for Maine. First off, in his 3 year deal, he’s not guaranteed 3 full seasons of time. Pelfrey, Perez, Santana, Holt, Mejia and Niese will also be in the mix for starting spots, so odds are his value at the end of the deal would be significantly lower than it should be, and also, once again, he’d be taking a paycut of over 50% of what he’d expect to be making next year. The fallacy of saying that he wouldn’t get much more in the Open Market is that it’s likely that he won’t even see the open market for at least another 3 years anyway, and due to the arb-rules will probably make $9-10 million over the next 3 years unless he has a REALLY serious injury or lack of performance.
John Maine isn’t going to take an astronomical paycut just to be a “contender” for the Mets rotation when he could easily get a lot more time for another organization and make more money.
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 16, 2009 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions
He might if the Mets say
Take it or take a non-tender, which was what you were proposing in the first place, unless I’m misunderstanding your idea about how to handle Maine. Its an issue of risk assessment on both parts. Maine shouldn’t consider such a deal if he believes he’s guaranteed to start each of the next three seasons on an MLB 40-man roster. But the whole point is, if he gets hurt again for an extended period next year, the odds that he’ll wind up on a 40-man for 2011 are virtually nil. He’ll be forced to accept a minor league contract, and an even larger paycut.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Sep 16, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
my idea was to trade him, and frankly the Mets are in no position to non-tender Maine as it would be just plain stupid. Even if this were to happen he would probably get at least $2 million for a year anyway, considering what pitchers get these days, and that’d either be from a rich team like the Sox looking for a backend starter/stop gap for prospects or a poor team looking for a solid 2/3 starter with little risk.
Maine has absolutely no reason to take that deal.
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 16, 2009 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Little risk?
A guy who’s spent a significant amount of the previous two seasons on the DL carries “little risk”? He might get a deal from another team, but it’d probably be just a 1-year deal. And like Meddler said, if Maine gets hurt again in 2010, he’s looking for an NRI the next spring. His idea works for both sides – Maine gets financial security, and the Mets get a cheap starter with upside.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Sep 16, 2009 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Little risk, explained
I mean like a no-budget team with no shot at winning would take him and if he doesn’t work out they’re still a crappy team like before and if he does they’ve added another solid pitcher that they can trade away or re-sign.
But as for “financial security” that idea is ridiculous. Would you rather take a 1 year $10 million deal or a 2-year $8 million deal? Of course you take 10!!! Listen, the point is, there is maybe a 5% chance that the Mets non-tender John Maine (it’d make wayyy more sense to trade him), and based on his $2.6 million last year he’s making around $3 million for 2010, and unless he has a 7.00 ERA he isn’t going to be non-tendered, so over the next three years his salary projects to be $10 million, and he’ll likely end up on a team where he gets a full-time rotation spot. Worst case scenario for him is that he gets a $2-3 million deal this year and $1 million per year over the next two.
Just because it’s more years on ONE contract doesn’t mean there’s financial security. Based on his position as a pretty talented, ripe-aged righty with a mid-90s fastball and a very good season under his belt, 3-year $3.6 million contracts are beneath him.
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 16, 2009 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions
For God's sake
even Omar has to know ese contracto vale verga!!!
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 16, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Nobody is offering Maine
1 year, $10 million this winter. He has to pitch a full season or two first. This off-season, there’s going to be a lot of belt-tightening.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Sep 17, 2009 1:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Whoa Whoa
back it up
You’re confusing an example i made (I was saying that the “financial security” thing is BS because all you’re really saying is that it’s OK that he’s making less dough than he possibly could on the FA market or in avoiding arb, because he’s got a steady income) with the fact that I presented that unless he does uncharacteristically horrible he isn’t going to be non-tendered and he’ll likely get small payraises each year (think $3 million for 2010, $3.3 million for 2011 and $3.6 for 2012 unless he has a breakout year again) which would add up to around $10 million
Maine would actually be playing it safe to NOT take the hypothetical offer and stick to his guns as conservatively he’d be making 3 times more.
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 17, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I would only keep Tatis if
we don’t sign a 1B or LF.
i think pagan would be a decent, slightly below average starter. not every starter has to be great. i would rather have milton bradley though.
daniel murphy should not be a starter in the major leagues right now. he should only start as a last resort.
Murphy=Next Mark DeRosa
The thing about Muprh is that last year he had a .386 BABIP and this year he has a .286. You don’t know what the middle is; according to The Hardball Times xBABIP calculator he should have a .298 BABIP this year.
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
I think if Jeff Francoeur and Angel Pagan are starting outfielders next year
and Sullivan and Tatis are the backups something has gone horribly horribly wrong
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
Only one of them should be on the team, ideally.
Hint: First and last name have the same amount of letters.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
Could it be Angel Pagan?
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
I was actually thinking
LF Matt Holliday
RF Pagan
1B Murphy/Tatis
Cory Sullivan would be a backup.
On a completely unrelated note
why does this FanPost have 3 titles?
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
are you referring to the semi-colon
and colon in the title?
Because Cuts and Keepers is the title, and the rest is explanation of the title, and the extra semi-colon is because of my lack of grammatical skills.
It should read: Cuts & Keepers: The Freddie Coupons Edition of Cash for Clunkers
by METSMETSMETS on Sep 16, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions
It was more like 2 titles, with one subtitle.
But whatever, I’m just being difficult, haha.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by 



























